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.
I don't think your way of thinking represents most of the middle class. I am probably somewhere in the lower middle class myself and I don't think that way. Though I am not rich, I do not have rich envy as you do and I don't see anything unethical in what Bain did. Keep envying the rich guys. It's a sure way to make sure you never have any money yourself. You will always have to sponge off of your neighbor for beer and use of a pool rather than buying your own.
You questions are accusing me of being unethical in business practices and hardly rhetorical. No, I have never hurt a client. First of all because it would bother my conscience and second because my business is word of mouth and it would hurt me professionally.
Why do you consider it "rich envy" when people acknowledge and don't have a problem with the rich who earned their wealth by providing a service or products that others want? Your post tells indicates that you have rich envy even though you won't admit it.
Wow, I guess you are Red indeed. You can quote Marx all you want but the whole world except for complete idiots knows that Marxism has repeatedly failed at everything so when you use that philosophy to criticize a capitalist United States you're just showing that you are owned by a failed philosophy. Only physical labor has value, yeesh.
I'm not actually Red. I'm about as far from Red as there can be.
The problem with communists, and other socialists, is their complete disregard for human nature and the human condition. They either naively believe that there is no such thing as human nature. Or they believe they can suppress human nature through social-engineering/propaganda.
I actually see humans for what they are, imperfect. And I think their imperfection is the best thing about them. A perfect world would be predictable and boring. Thus there isn't even such a thing as a perfect world.
A friend of mine once told me "Take good advice, regardless of where it comes from."
The reason why I quoted Marx, isn't because I like Marx. I think Marx was largely delusional. But he still made some good observations. Another good example is "Thomas Jefferson". I think Thomas Jefferson is the greatest man in human history. But, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Does his owning slaves automatically discredit everything else he did or said? I don't think so. And the Declaration of Independence might be the most important document in human history.
Some of my favorite quotes by H. L. Mencken...
Quote:
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."
"Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems abysmal. Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free."
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right...The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds."
"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are."
"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it."
"The chief difference between free capitalism and State socialism seems to be this: that under the former a man pursues his own advantage openly, frankly and honestly, whereas under the latter he does so hypocritically and under false pretenses."
"The basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy, but that it is a bore. It is not so much a war as an endless standing in line. The objection to it is not that it is predominantly painful, but that it is lacking in sense."
"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker."
"The state — or, to make the matter more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them."
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth". It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."
"Liberty means self-reliance, it means resolution, it means enterprise, it means the capacity for doing without. The free man is one who has won a small and precarious territory from the great mob of his inferiors, and is prepared and ready to defend it and make it support him. All around him are enemies, and where he stands there is no friend. He can hope for little help from other men of his own kind, for they have battles of their own to fight. He has made of himself a sort of god in his little world, and he must face the responsibilities of a god, and the dreadful loneliness."
"What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace: the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty. The fact, perhaps, explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take–his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact.
A policeman is a charlatan who offers, in return for obedience, to protect him (a) from his superiors, (b) from his equals, and (c) from himself. This last service, under democracy, is commonly the most esteemed of them all. In the United States, at least theoretically, it is the only thing that keeps ice-wagon drivers, Y.M.C.A. secretaries, insurance collectors and other such human camels from smoking opium, ruining themselves in the night clubs, and going to Palm Beach with Follies girls . . . Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity."
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
"Equality before the law is probably forever inattainable. It is a noble ideal, but it can never be realized, for what men value in this world is not rights but privileges."
"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre."
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."
"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."
"What is any political campaign save a concerted effort to turn out a set of politicians who are admittedly bad and put in a set who are thought to be better. The former assumption, I believe is always sound; the latter is just as certainly false. For if experience teaches us anything at all it teaches us this: that a good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar."
"The strange American ardor for passing laws, the insane belief in regulation and punishment, plays into the hands of the reformers, most of them quacks themselves. Their efforts, even when honest, seldom accomplish any appreciable good. The Harrison Act, despite its cruel provisions, has not diminished drug addiction in the slightest. Oppressive laws do not destroy minorities; they simply make bootleggers."
"Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it."
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
"It is [a politician's] business to get and hold his job at all costs. If he can hold it by lying, he will hold it by lying; if lying peters out, he will try to hold it by embracing new truths. His ear is ever close to the ground."
"Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are executed in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle — a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him, he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism."
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure."
- Rich people tend to excercise more to stay healthier and spend less money on health care since they know that if they don't live healthy it will cost them more money.
- Rich people eat healthier to stay healthier to save cost.
- Rich people waste less money on late fees, and other fees that cost them money. Pay bills on time.
- Rich people tend to compare prices before buying items to save money.
Poor people overall don't do what is written above.
If poor people would try to do the same than they will end up with more money!
Poor people often cannot afford to eat healthier. I have often knowingly eaten crap (not junk food per se, but crap like hot dogs and cheap carbs) when money was tight. .
Basically what I'm saying is, Wall Street through the process of finance capitalism, speculation, and the manipulation of currency produces a lot of "wealth on paper". This creates wealth at the top through processes which have absolutely nothing to do with productivity.
But it also creates wealth in pension/retirement accounts that similarly has nothing to do with productivity. That $24 trillion isn't all from deposits. Give up growing wealth at the top, and millions of American workers and retirees would also have to give up any growth in their pension/retirement accounts.
- Rich people tend to excercise more to stay healthier and spend less money on health care since they know that if they don't live healthy it will cost them more money.
- Rich people eat healthier to stay healthier to save cost.
- Rich people waste less money on late fees, and other fees that cost them money. Pay bills on time.
- Rich people tend to compare prices before buying items to save money.
Poor people overall don't do what is written above.
If poor people would try to do the same than they will end up with more money!
I think it is summed up by the old adage "IT TAKES MONEY TO MAKE MONEY"!
I think excessive income inequality is a big, if not the biggest problem, which, however, can be solved if people realize it is a problem.
(I accidentally noticed something today: in German they use the same word for to earn and to deserve (the word is verdienen, which is literally the same as deserve (derived from dienen = to serve)), in English there are two different words obviously, which might create more of a disconnect between the two meanings. Just wondering... Some say language and views cause or reinforce each other. I have also read that people in whose languages the future tense is rarely used (if it exists at all) tend to think in a more sustainable, responsible way because the future is now, so to speak. In German, too, the future tense is rarely used, usually the present tense is used instead.)
But it also creates wealth in pension/retirement accounts that similarly has nothing to do with productivity. That $24 trillion isn't all from deposits. Give up growing wealth at the top, and millions of American workers and retirees would also have to give up any growth in their pension/retirement accounts.
Look, stocks function largely in the same way as real-estate. While the cost of real-estate can go up as a result of increasing demand. There will always be a theoretical limitation to how much the overall real-estate market can go up based on the total availability of capital. If there is a fixed amount of capital, then overall the price of real-estate should largely remain the same.
The cost of real-estate goes up when buyers "bid" more and more on properties. But as a general rule, buyers can only bid more when there is more capital to bid with. The question then becomes, where does this additional capital come from?
When someone wants to buy a house, they almost invariably borrow money from a bank. Now, lets ignore the overall workings of our "fractional reserve" system and just pretend that all money is borrowed directly from the Federal Reserve itself. Where does the Federal Reserve get the money it loans to you to buy that house? The truth is, when you borrow money, that money doesn't come from anywhere, it gets created out of thin-air. And the Federal Reserve can create an unlimited amount of money out of thin-air, and at zero-percent interest.
If money can be created infinitely out of thin-air, then that money can be used to "bid-up" the cost of real-estate. As housing prices rise, many "investors/speculators" will see that prices are rising, and will borrow even more money to continue "bidding-up" the price of housing. Eventually creating a "speculative bubble".
When we look at the value of a Wall Street stock, fundamentally, the same system and forces are at play. The more money being used to bid-up stocks, the higher the value of the stocks can go.
Imagine it like this, lets pretend that you and I both started out with $1 million in cash, and then we were given a "margin" line of credit of another $1 million(margin accounts allow you borrow twice the value of your original holdings). So you take your $2 million and begin buying stocks. The act of you buying stock will cause the stocks to go up. When these prices begin going up, I might respond by buying more of the stock myself, further pushing up the value of the stock. If this feedback loop is strong enough. In a short period of time, the $2 million in stock you originally purchased, may have doubled to $4 million. That means instead of having $1 million in assets and $1 million in margin debt. You now have $3 million in assets and $1 million in margin debt. Which means you could theoretically borrow another $2 million on the margin, pushing your total assets to purchase stocks with to $6 million. This new infusion of capital through margin debt, can then further push up the value of stocks. Creating an endless speculative feedback loop.
Now, I think most people who understand the Federal Reserve, understand how this system works. And many of those who criticize the Federal Reserve will talk about the government's policies which further direct capital into this system of speculation(IE the community reinvestment act).
Basically, the great wealth produced by the stock-market, and within the real-estate market, is almost entirely derived from the actions of the Federal Reserve. Those who understand how this system works, and are positioned to take the most advantage of this system, reap the most rewards.
Since most people don't understand the system or have the access to capital to use it to their advantage, then a large percentage of the people, especially at the bottom, aren't taking advantage of this system. Even to the extent that someone at the bottom can take take advantage of the system, they aren't normally involved directly, they either buy some sort of "managed funds" or having a "managed retirement account".
My complaint about this system, is that it is completely artificial. Not only is the money created artificial, but the advantages are artificial as well. And the wealth isn't true wealth, it is merely "wealth on paper". Speculating in the stock-market doesn't produce more food, it doesn't build houses, it doesn't make cars, it doesn't heat our homes, it doesn't build roads, it doesn't teach our kids. The only it can produce, is money. And it really only produces that money for certain class of people.
So why do we tolerate this system? For one reason only, it benefits the government.
Government has two jobs. First, it wants to dominate the world economically, militarily, politically, and culturally. Secondly, it needs to create a stable government.
To create a stable government, you need to keep the rich happy, while also giving the appearance of caring for the poor. And to dominate the world, you need to maximize the profit-potential of big-business, grow the economy, and thus grow the access of government to capital(to build a large military).
The only way to have a government which can keep both the rich happy, and the poor happy. You need to have a government which can spend a lot of money without raising taxes. And you need a government which effectively transfers power into the kinds of businessmen who are more inclined to maximize efficiency, productivity, and profitability. Basically, you need a corporate-controlled state(state capitalism/corporatism), which has endless access to capital(federal reserve) for providing social benefits to keep the poor happy and working, and to invest in large-scale projects.
If you understand "mercantilism" and how the United States controls the world through economic coercion. You'll understand why our system is the way it is.
Basically, we have this evil tradeoff. Our system is sort of like making a "deal with the devil". We basically have to have what we have, because otherwise our government would be less powerful, and our society would be less united, and less productive.
Which comes to the question, "Would you rather be rich or free?".
I would rather be free. But even if America was to abolish the Federal Reserve and stop intervening in the economy. Would we be able to stay free? Wouldn't someone else just come along and do the same things that we do to other countries? Eventually using their economic and military power to take advantage of us, turn us against each other, and undermine any possibility of freedom?
Which comes to the question, "Would you rather be rich or free?".
I would rather be free.
It's not as simple as that. The millions of American workers and retirees who are depending on the appreciation of their aggregate $24 trillion in pension/retirement investments are unlikely to be rich as a result of the growth in value, but they will be able to draw enough money from their accounts in their retirements to maintain more of a free lifestyle than they would be able to without that asset appreciation.
news flash, none of you are rich so you don't know what it takes to be rich.
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.
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.
Some say language and views cause or reinforce each other. I have also read that people in whose languages the future tense is rarely used (if it exists at all) tend to think in a more sustainable, responsible way because the future is now, so to speak. In German, too, the future tense is rarely used, usually the present tense is used instead.)
