The rich have money -- and passion

[levi86]

Though it seems the one problem with Marxist theory is when it seems the proponets seem to never really follow through with giving the power back to the people.

I think it’s a bit unfair to say that its proponents never follow through; there have been many instances in which socialist concepts have been applied effectively.

While I cannot remember right now if I read all your posts, but I’ll say you might be better off defining the aspects of the system you desire, than to call it Marxist Theory, and especially calling things Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. All those terms have ideas behind it for every given poster, and the definitions can be vague. In the end you might not be debating actual ideas, but loaded terms. Especially with Vern, (correct me if I’m wrong, Vern)

Couldn’t agree more. I think ill do just that (after I get some sleep )

Although I’ll ask one thing, does Marxist theory allow for private property?

Oh yes, absolutely. Marxism simply states that ones ownership of property should not reach a level at which it infringes upon the rights of others.

 

[thechrismyster]

Marxism simply states that ones ownership of property should not reach a level at which it infringes upon the rights of others.

which has to be determined by some governing body.

oh, that would end well.

 

[jman507]

I think it’s a bit unfair to say that its proponents never follow through; there have been many instances in which socialist concepts have been applied effectively.

Couldn’t agree more. I think ill do just that (after I get some sleep )

Oh yes, absolutely. Marxism simply states that ones ownership of property should not reach a level at which it infringes upon the rights of others.

Ok yes, looking over Marxism a bit, I don’t think you are too far from Vern in spirit. It has looked like Marxism is actually suffered from the same abuses as capitalism. The biggest contention looks like the collective ownership of property. I wouldn’t go for that way of thinking. I myself have no problem for allowing for owning of capital to a substantial degree. The most important aspect though is that the majority of people could be in a situation where they have enough capital, actual ownership of capital or money, to be able to walk away from an abusive situation. In a Marxist situation to work, the people need to take great care, that they do not lose that ability either.

I guess the way I’d summerize for social justice:

On the micro level one should take great care to insure material goods are in good order. One should make prudent choices to be in best position to care for oneself and for one’s family, and not become a ‘slave’ to another to survive. In order to take care of anyone else, you need to be in a secure situation, and avoid unneeded excesses.

On a meso level, such as regionally or nationally one should try to make sure to avoid abusive situation by the coporations, unions, and government. At the same time, an individual can do less on this level than the micro level, but if micro level is secure, it is easier to avoid abuse. Plus the situation gets complicated the further away from the micor level, the economic systems get very complex, so one change in one aspect, can effect all others.

On a macro level, such as a large nation and internationally, one really needs to be aware of abuse, but yet there is an even more complex nature.

One important thing is always prayer and meditation. One must seek to understand that if one’s ideas and actions of actual application is actually doing right and what it is suppose to. The person who has lots of capital needs to step back and think, I’m I doing what is good for myself, our workers, and our customers? If your a labor leader, am I doing what’s good for our workers, the business, and the consumers? The worker must step back and think is this good for myself, my company, and our customers? In a just society, it ought to be yes, yes, yes. One must keep aware that one will want to do what’s best for oneself, but you need to try to be objective and think if it’s good for the other too.

 

[jman507]

One other thing, I don’t think if the set up is private ownership or collective and even it’s size is near as important as trying to stay in a position as not being stuck in a situation where one must rely on one organization. One you lose needed skills to make a living and two your stuck with whatever they give you. Especially if one ends up in a welfare state, one must avoid being trapped in it if one gets the welfare, unless one is unable to avoid the situation.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So let me get this strait. You base your opinions not on the system itself, but on the actions of dictators who have exploited the system?

“Exploited the system?” Dictatorship is inherent in Marxism. Even Marx, who never understood the story of the Man, the Horse and the Wolf, admitted there would be a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

Communism is what it is – and it is a brutal, totalitarian system.

Perhaps I should apply the same standard to capitalism

Perhaps I should mention that colonialism would not have been possible without capitalism, that the enslavement of millions and the exploitation of many more by the colonial powers was driven by capitalism. That the only reason your country and many others were able to achieve economic success during this period was because of the exploitation of these peoples based on capitalist principles.

And what, precisely, has that got to do with this thread?

The thesis of this thread is that in the United States, all the institutions and freedoms are in place to allow everyone to become prosperous. What is lacking is quality education for all, and inculcation of the values of hard work, saving and investing.

Perhaps I should mention the countless crimes that have been committed against humanity by huge corporations in the name of profit, and capitalism.

Perhaps you should – and I’ll match them with the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Collectivisation Famine, the Purges and on and on.

And that would prove, what? That we should not educate our children? That we should not seek to instill in them a respect for hard work, saving and investing?

That up until recently capitalism was characterised by the mass exploitation of the proletariat by a very small elitist community. That the only reason such exploitation has been stemmed in some western countries is because of the Labour Movement, which was founded upon socialist ideology.

Which means what in reference to this thread?

Perhaps I should mention that the vast majority of dictators throughout modern history were not socialists but rather capitalists, that they have exploited their populations through means of the capitalist system.

When the economy is ruled by a myriad of independent decisions, made by people seeking profit through their own efforts, you do not have a dictatorship – as much as you would like to claim the contrary.

I could use all these things as proof of my position , but to so would be dishonest and misleading. [/quiote]
As dishonest and misleading as claiming all the woes of the world are due to aliens from the planet Zolgarsh.
levi86;2270527:

To base ones opinions regarding a particular system or institution on the actions of a minority of individuals is bigotry.

Despite the fact that you have done exactly that, I have not called you a bigot.

When siting the actions of Stalin, Mao and Po pot as “proof” that socialism is flawed you are no better than those who hate the Catholic Church because of the past indiscretions of its clergy or governing body.

Let us now praise Saint Stalin, Saint Mao, and Saint Pol Pot.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Just think: a college drop out, Bill Gates, had an idea, started working in a converted garage, and ended up the richest man in the world.

Whoa!!!

 

[grapes]

Lets talk about a “living wage” for a minute…
Well there’s a minute and in this day and age I can honestly say we don’t have one.
Let me make myself clear by saying I’m not speaking for myself as I have been blessed to have a good trade with a union that has a long history of holding up a good wage, safe working conditions, intergrity and helping the community prosper by spending that hard earned money locally for the most part.
You can thank the gov’t and greedy corporations for taking there money and jobs overseas. In some cases it can’t be helped if a company is to survive in a “cut throat” economics world also known as globalization.
North America prospered on manufacturing and now its all but gone. It’s very,very easy to tell someone to retrain but in the real world that is not always possable. What makes it worse even is that many retrained personel have nowhere to utilise there skills.
There’s something very wrong when a person must work two jobs to keep his head above water. That’s not living it’s poverty and now more so than ever we have a new class of people to add to society “the working poor”.
The catechism I believe states the moral and ethical responsability an employer has to provide a “living wage” to its employees.
We need an uprising in organised labor like there was 100 yrs ago.
We need hefty tariffs and protection legislation just like China and India have.
We need people with a little backbone to say enough is enough and do something about it.
grapes

 

[system]

First of all, let us dispel some myths – that the rich inherit their money, and the rest of us cannot achieve what they have.

Your quote that follows:

Interviews show that only a minority of the nation’s top 1% inherited their wealth or made it in the stock market. Most said they simply had a dream and were willing to take risks in pursuing it.

Interviews show? How many interviews, where? Any statistics? There’s alot of “old money” surrounding the cities here. You would never get an interview with any of them, or their kids. In fact, you wouldn’t know where to find them. Inheritance ain’t a myth, and I’m not swayed by someone who found some hard workers who made a million to come do an interview. It’s called pride.

I can’t get into these lofty economics arguments, but applaud those of you who have worked with the poor. I on the other hand, have worked with the rich. They suffer a different type of poverty.

Anyway, regardless of what MSN might tell me, “becoming affluent” is just not a priority for me. The Lord provides.

I’ve seen affluence hit people close to me. They generally get obsessed with things more than people, and vote for whoever offers a tax break.

 

[levi86]

“Exploited the system?” Dictatorship is inherent in Marxism. Even Marx, who never understood the story of the Man, the Horse and the Wolf, admitted there would be a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

I thought you said you’d read Marx. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” has absolutely zero to do with a dictator.

But as you said the immorality of capitalism is a subject for another thread. So I’ll hold my tongue for now.

God bless.

 

[Maxply]

I guess what’s most disturbing to me in all this is that libertarians typically shout down any more serious understandings of economics, using an outdated (and discredited) appreciation of economics. There’s a loud self-righteousness in the “libertarian” view, as if its possessor has the golden key to the universe, and those who don’t believe in its theoretical excesses are dolts and bumbleheads.

By the way, Levi86 appears to me to have a solid understanding of Marxist theory; I studied Marxism at the graduate level, reading the original writings. The so-called Marxist nations were frauds from the get-go, held together by blood and terror.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I guess what’s most disturbing to me in all this is that libertarians typically shout down any more serious understandings of economics, using an outdated (and discredited) appreciation of economics. There’s a loud self-righteousness in the “libertarian” view, as if its possessor has the golden key to the universe, and those who don’t believe in its theoretical excesses are dolts and bumbleheads.
By the way, Levi86 appears to me to have a solid understanding of Marxist theory; I studied Marxism at the graduate level, reading the original writings. The so-called Marxist nations were frauds from the get-go, held together by blood and terror.

Could you explain that comment? Libertarians are by definition “micro” so there main problem is how to build the “macro” system. You listen to Libertarians telling the government to but out of their lives. Can you make a rational argument the Wright amendment or the Byrd amendment is good for these Libertarians?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just think: a college drop out, Bill Gates, had an idea, started working in a converted garage, and ended up the richest man in the world.

Whoa!!!

Wasn’t he a well educated man ( driving a porsche) before he quite college? As mentioned earlier assets and resources are the base. I think you will find he had some of each. He did a wonderful job in his business adventure and last I knew he was well rewarded for it. He is certainly rich; however whether he is typical of most rich people is debatable.

btw the opportunity to do this is a key to why America is great

 

[Al_Masetti]

Wasn’t he a well educated man ( driving a porsche) before he quite college?

What in the world, does (a) “a well educated man”

have to do with (b) “driving a porsche”

???

Non-sequitur.

I am well-educated, but I do not drive a porsche.

Does this mean I SHOULD have a porsche … because all well educated men have porsches???

OR, does it mean that people who drive porsches are well educated???

As one of my favorite television expressions goes: please 'splain.

thankyouverymuchandhaveaniceday.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What in the world, does (a) “a well educated man” have to do with (b) “driving a porsche” ??? Non-sequitur. I am well-educated, but I do not drive a porsche. Does this mean I SHOULD have a porsche … because all well educated men have porsches???
OR, does it mean that people who drive porsches are well educated??? As one of my favorite television expressions goes: please 'splain. thankyouverymuchandhaveaniceday.

It shows resources (today a porsche is roughly $50,000-$70,000) additionally he attended a private prep school some say that school’s tuition was higher than Harvard’s. His mother sat on boards to include the Board of Reagent (Governor appointed) not typical of the blue collar crowd. His father was a Lawyer. This is not to diminish his accomplishments at all. It is to reaffirm investment (resources and assets) are what makes wealth. The prep school, Harvard, and car were paid for by whom?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Interviews show? How many interviews, where? Any statistics?

Read “The Millionaire Next Door” – an in-depth study of the wealthy in America.

About 80% of all millionaires made it on their own.

There’s alot of “old money” surrounding the cities here.

Oh, how do you know? How many interviews did you conduct? Where? Any statistics?

You would never get an interview with any of them, or their kids. In fact, you wouldn’t know where to find them.

I wouldn’t know where to find them, but you would? You found and counted them?

Again, one of the best studies is “The Millionaire Next Door.” Read it.

Inheritance ain’t a myth, and I’m not swayed by someone who found some hard workers who made a million to come do an interview. It’s called pride.

Nor am I swayed by someone who did not do a study, but wants to tell me the people who did “wouldn’t know where to find them.”

I can’t get into these lofty economics arguments, but applaud those of you who have worked with the poor. I on the other hand, have worked with the rich. They suffer a different type of poverty.

Anyway, regardless of what MSN might tell me, “becoming affluent” is just not a priority for me. The Lord provides.

I’ve seen affluence hit people close to me. They generally get obsessed with things more than people, and vote for whoever offers a tax break.

Right – but how do you know where to look to find these rich people, so you can know things like that?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Read “The Millionaire Next Door” – an in-depth study of the wealthy in America.

About 80% of all millionaires made it on their own.

Oh, how do you know? How many interviews did you conduct? Where? Any statistics?

I wouldn’t know where to find them, but you would? You found and counted them?

Again, one of the best studies is “The Millionaire Next Door.” Read it.

Nor am I swayed by someone who did not do a study, but wants to tell me the people who did “wouldn’t know where to find them.”

Right – but how do you know where to look to find these rich people, so you can know things like that?

An amazing ststistis is 2 children are born one day, one child has a grandpa which places $2,000 in a trust fund each year for 5 years ($10,000) the child never contributes a penny. The second child works through school and makes a $2,000 IRA contribution every year from age 23 to 65. ($84,000). If both accounts compound at an average of 10% look at the retirement balance at age 65, the non contributor has >$3.7M while the guy who but in the $84K has >$1.1M. This is a simple example of early access to resources.

 

[system]

Oh, how do you know? How many interviews did you conduct? Where? Any statistics?

Answering a question with a question has become a common tactic for you vern. I think it’s beneath you

About 80% of all millionaires made it on their own.

So that means 20% did not make it on their own - Interesting because your first post said less that 1% inherited or made it on the market. A huge change in less than 48 hours!

I wouldn’t know where to find them, but you would? You found and counted them?

Living 45 years in close proximity you learn a few things, yes. I thinking teaching wealthy students for the better part of a decade also added to “my study”

Again, one of the best studies is “The Millionaire Next Door.” Read it.

**
Why would I want to read it?
I said becoming affluent is not a priority with me and that the Lord will provide - interestingly, those comments, (and the one one about the wealthy having a very different kind of poverty), are the only comments you would NOT reply to.
**

Right – but how do you know where to look to find these rich people, so you can know things like that?

I have family and friends who have become very affluent - A couple of them millionaires. I grew up with them. A small sample? yes - but I can find them and I can know what I said. I do NOT think they are unlike those in the genralization I made. Heck, the four I’m thinking more might be one more than the “interviews” done by the MSN reporter meeting his deadline for “fluff articles needed for the holiday weekend”

This whole discussion, instead of sounding like “social justice” sounds alot more like the clowns on TV preaching the Gospel of Prosperity or whatever they’re calling it this week.

And the very title of the “article” seems to be praising the rich for “having passion.” Many people have passion. I have great passion for protecting my family, for my work and creative projects, on good days, great passion for my faith. These are good things. Are we to praise the rich because they have a passion for how to turn $10 into $20?

I won’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

An amazing ststistis is 2 children are born one day, one child has a grandpa which places $2,000 in a trust fund each year for 5 years ($10,000) the child never contributes a penny. The second child works through school and makes a $2,000 IRA contribution every year from age 23 to 65. ($84,000). If both accounts compound at an average of 10% look at the retirement balance at age 65, the non contributor has >$3.7M while the guy who but in the $84K has >$1.1M. This is a simple example of early access to resources.

That’s not statistics, but compound interest (or profit.) The longer your funds have to compound, the better off you are.

Personally, I feel grandparents should establish trust funds for the education of their grandchildren. They should also assist the parents in inculcating in the grandchildren a respect for education, hard work and saving.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Answering a question with a question has become a common tactic for you vern. I think it’s beneath you

So that means 20% did not make it on their own - Interesting because your first post said less that 1% inherited or made it on the market. A huge change in less than 48 hours!

Living 45 years in close proximity you learn a few things, yes. I thinking teaching wealthy students for the better part of a decade also added to “my study”

**
Why would I want to read it?
I said becoming affluent is not a priority with me and that the Lord will provide - interestingly, those comments, (and the one one about the wealthy having a very different kind of poverty), are the only comments you would NOT reply to.
**

I have family and friends who have become very affluent - A couple of them millionaires. I grew up with them. A small sample? yes - but I can find them and I can know what I said. I do NOT think they are unlike those in the genralization I made. Heck, the four I’m thinking more might be one more than the “interviews” done by the MSN reporter meeting his deadline for “fluff articles needed for the holiday weekend”

This whole discussion, instead of sounding like “social justice” sounds alot more like the clowns on TV preaching the Gospel of Prosperity or whatever they’re calling it this week.

And the very title of the “article” seems to be praising the rich for “having passion.” Many people have passion. I have great passion for protecting my family, for my work and creative projects, on good days, great passion for my faith. These are good things. Are we to praise the rich because they have a passion for how to turn $10 into $20?

I won’t.

I feel sorry for you – you’re so eaten up with envy.

 

[system]

I feel sorry for you – you’re so eaten up with envy.

Come one Vern. Because I try to live my life based on faith in God and not faith in cash - that makes me eaten up with envy?

Or, is it that you actually can’t conceive that someone would attempt to live by his faith?

Rather - here’s an alternative to your theory - you couldn’t refute what I wrote:

Did you stats change from 1% ro 20%? Yes, they did.

You are unable to answer the basic questions I raise (validity of the interview) so you answer with a question.

You cannot believe someone (in America no less!) is not deperately trying to get rich, so you offer me a book to read.

Read what I wrote - I’ve lived near the very wealthy and taught their children. There is a spiritual poverty many of them suffer with. I didn’t say all of them, but many.
Do you deny this? Did Christ not mention it himself?

I’m no saint. I’ve had some envy, especially as a teenager, but I grew up.

You’re trying to find a character flaw in me
*(thanks by the way - prayer, confession and studying my motives can’t do it all! ) *

because I raised not only questions you can’t answer, but a way of life you don’t believe is possible.