patrick.net

nw888 says

There's no reason to be rude, so please refrain from doing it. If you want to have an adult discussion, that's fine with me, but let's be civil here.

There is nothing ruder than shoving your words down someone else's mouth. It should a distinct lack of respect for the other party, the audience, and the truth. I'll correct a person the first and second time they do it, but when it becomes a pattern, there is no choice but to call out the bullshit for what it is.

nw888 says

You stated that you take credit for people's success. There's no arguing that.

This is exactly the bullshit that I'm talking about. So, yes, I'm arguing it, you idiot. My claim is that in order for any person to succeed, he must use resources that are available only because society has made those resources available. The real world ain't Minecraft where you can chop down a tree with you bare hands and two days later have a castle on a private island you created with plenty of torches to keep the monsters at bay. In the real world we all use resources that we take for granted from roads to sewer systems to the electric grid that make modern life possible and becoming rich possible. Without all the inventions and institutions and labor of countless pass generations, we'd still be in the stone age. No man is an island that creates billions of dollars of wealth without using other people's labor.

This point is so obvious that there is no argument against it. And that is precisely why you deliberately twisted these words into "Dan thinks he is personally responsible for any success any person in the world has ever had". That is fucking retarded and quite frankly not worthy of my respect. If you want to have an adult conversation, than stop making childish and obvious Straw Man arguments. It shows that you have no confidence in what you are saying.

nw888 says

I just think this thread is trying to imply that rich people are nothing with US, and that's one sided to me.

That's because you're not listening. This thread is clearly addressing the myth that the ultra-rich are solely responsible for their riches and society contributed nothing to their success, and therefore the rich are morally responsible when they say "I've got mine, fuck everybody else".

What's really apparent is that well off middle class people with six figure salaries, who actually produce the wealth they take home, are perfectly ok with acknowledging that the poor and middle class should be protected from exploitation, whereas the utlra-rich, who never produced any wealth in their lives, want a multitude of poor people to maintain their opulent lifestyles. And the ultra-rich brainwash the Republican voter into thinking that the ultra-rich are rich because of hard work and production instead of bribing Congress to let them do things that would be illegal for anyone else.

Dan8267 says

the utlra-rich, who never produced any wealth in their lives, want a multitude of poor people to maintain their opulent lifestyles. And the ultra-rich brainwash the Republican voter into thinking that the ultra-rich are rich because of hard work and production instead of bribing Congress to let them do things that would be illegal for anyone else

Yes, I believe that the uber rich want to feel as though they are at an all inclusive resort in a developing country - where they feel like kings while local employees serve them with a smile on their face while they work for scraps.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly the bullshit that I'm talking about. So, yes, I'm arguing it, you idiot.

Go fuck yourself.

Dan8267 says

My claim is that in order for any person to succeed, he must use resources that are available only because society has made those resources available.

Isn't this claim obvious? Why are we even discussing it? Everyone needs each other to survive.

nw888 says

Go fuck yourself.

You're a fuckin' asshole. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!

socal2 says

What a loser argument. Do Democrats really want to tell Americans that they are nothing without the Government wiping our behinds 24/7? It's just like that creepy "Julia" cartoon that Obama put out showing how the government supported Julia her entire life.

Seriously, who really wants to live in a society where all of our success and very existence is beholden to politicians and union protected bureaucrats?

Only people with really, really low reading comprehension. You must have gone to public schools.

dublin hillz says

Yes, I believe that the uber rich want to feel as though they are at an all inclusive resort in a developing country - where they feel like kings while local employees serve them with a smile on their face while they work for scraps.

Oh, I don't think that just want to feel it. Many of them seem to be actively trying to make it a reality.

Debunking the Self made man - debunked. Government occupies the central role in creating conditions which lessen economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Government despises, demonizes and punishes economic prosperity while simultaneously crushing personal opportunity.

The proof is that government strives to create EQUALITY which negates, or is the opposite of, economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Honest Abe says

The proof is that government strives to create EQUALITY which negates, or is the opposite of, economic prosperity and personal opportunity.

Equality is the opposite of personal opportunity only if you believe in nothing but zero-sum games.

Arguing that people who have made money from scratch because of infrastructure is a facile argument.
Of course having roads to transport goods is helpful and so is having the internet to communicate. People who are self made have contributed to these systems too and in fact have usually kicked in vastly more than whiny journalists. Outside of the extreme fringe of the Libertarian party who would ever complain about some services being publicly provided?
As a Los Angeles resident, it is very obvious to me that a significant proportion of the population doesn't work. On my middle class street there are a couple of households at best that go off to work every day. Yet they can afford these houses and most have big, shiny late model cars in the driveway. Unless I happen to live on a street with independably wealthy people myself and a few others are paying for all the public services we all enjoy.

m1ckey6 says

Arguing that people who have made money from scratch because of infrastructure is a facile argument.

And I would agree with that up to the point where conservatives argue against this facile truth with the myth of the self-made man who succeeded, not because of all the opportunities and support he received from society, but despite it and therefore he has no moral or ethical obligation, no duty to return to society a bit of the profits so that the next generation can have successful people as well.

The self-made man myth is used as a justification for selfishness and self-centerness. It runs contrary to the self-evident truths that now people are claiming are obvious. It has been said that the truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. Although, until nw888, I never saw a person go through all three stages in a few lines of text.

Its really about the difference between freedom and slavery. Many support the concept of free enterprise (freedom). Liberals believe they own the person or the labor of the person . Owning another person, or the fruits of their labor is slavery, isn't it?

Honest Abe says

Liberals believe they own the person or the labor of the person .

I have yet to meet a liberal who believes that.

As for taxation being slavery, our employers tax us at 50-80% of our labor's fruits. Out of the remaining portion, government only taxes about 25%. I'm more a slave to my employer than to the government.

The fact is that no system could make an executive a billionaire without heavily taxing the producing class.

Dan8267 says

As for taxation being slavery, our employers tax us at 50-80% of our labor's fruits.

Well that's a perspective I hadn't thought of.

But you're right, the targetting of our wallets by corporations is pretty direct & comparable. Whatever you make, they want to find a way to make you spend it on their products.

Dan, how is it the employer taxes us 50 - 80%?? Maybe I'm missing something, please elaobrate.

Honest Abe says

Dan, how is it the employer taxes us 50 - 80%?? Maybe I'm missing something, please elaobrate.

As I showed earlier in this thread, the average American worker produces over $100k of wealth a year, yet is paid before taxes about a third of that. Where does the rest of the wealth go? It goes to the employer as a tax on the employee's productivity.

Now a 10% tax on employee productivity would be somewhat reasonable. At that rate, an employer only has to employ 10 people to make as much as the workers while doing minimum work himself, but to take about two-thirds of the worker's income is extravagant by any standards.

The bottom line is that your employer takes a far larger chunk of your wealth production than your government. Yet people ignore this because they have no idea how much money their employers are making off of them. Ignorance is their greatest tool. That's why salary information is always secret.

ArtimusMaxtor says

I just wonder why there is only Democracy, Socialism, Communism and dictatorship.

Only two of those things are forms of government. There are many, many forms of government (and even many forms of democracy).

Dan8267 says

As I showed earlier in this thread, the average American worker produces over $100k of wealth a year, yet is paid before taxes about a third of that. Where does the rest of the wealth go? It goes to the employer as a tax on the employee's productivity.

... and you got two likes for that?

I think you miss the whole point of the Employer/Employee relationship.
If you don't provide any ROI for your employer then he's your Uncle doing your Dad a solid by giving you a job, even though he has no use for you. Now if you want an equal part of the pie, then I think the word you're looking for is "Partner" yes "Partner" I'm sorry you missed the bonus round but you did win the Socialized handicapped challenge.

Bob tell him what he won!

"You win a Stalin Coffee pot, you'll wake every morning and brew a fresh pot of coffee, which you'll never actually get to enjoy your self. Your neighbors, friends and family will enjoy fresh robust coffee at your expense every morning. And to get you started, you will go home with ration coupons for 5 pounds of coffee.

Drink Stalin or the KGB will be callin."

(queue cheesy game show music)

CaptainShuddup says

I think you miss the whole point of the Employer/Employee relationship.

Exactly. The point is to extract the excess value created by their labor and give them just enough to keep them coming back and keep the rest for yourself. That's what I do (shhhhh don't tell.)

Well there's always the Employee profit sharing lie if you want to work for Wal-Mart or someother company that forces you to work cheap while claiming they are giving you profits. But all they have to do is update their quarterly profit earnings to make sure you don't get dick.

Or you can save up money and go in business for you self.
Then you'll miraculously have a different take on this, I would guarantee it.

CaptainShuddup says

If you don't provide any ROI for your employer then he's your Uncle doing your Dad a solid by giving you a job,

All employees provide ROI for their employers or they are immediately fired, well except in the defense industry and other worthless government jobs.

The problem is that employers are so greedy that taking 50% of a worker's wealth production isn't enough. He wants 90% now. He wants to take as much as he can letting the worker barely have enough to survive another day to work.

That is why outsourcing to third world nations with slave wages is so popular. It is also self-destructive. In 50 years, America will be a third-rate economy and China, possibly BRICS, will be the one and only economic powerhouse.

Furthermore, as the Chinese already know, the next superpower will not be based on military might, but rather economic might. China or BRICS will be the next undisputed superpower and the USA will be its bitch. So, if you're a patriot, you might want to stop that.

Dan8267 says

China, possibly BRICS, will be the one and only economic powerhouse.

Basing their economy on trading with whom?

Once the wealth-transfer is complete, seems like China will be in a corner. Once you've assisted in taking all your trading partners down to your level, they won't be rich customers eager to buy trinkets by the truckload.

BRICS scares me for the following reasons.

1. China and India each make up 25% of the world's population. Together they make up half the world. By sheer size alone they are an economic force to be reckoned with. But now, instead of being competitors, they are allies.

2. Although Brazil and Russia have had some hard economic times, they have also greatly exceeded expectations and have a lot of wealth generating capabilities. As large emerging markets, they have great potential to add to BRICS.

3. The days of the petro-dollar are numbered. Oil could be sold in a BRICS currency. Oil will eventually run out anyway, and what backs the value of the dollar then? When the dollar's exchange rate suddenly plummets and America can't afford to import and can't build anything since the infrastructure doesn't exist, then what?

4. Russia, India, China, and South America aren't exactly known for a stellar human and civil rights record.

5. There is always a possibility of a military alliance forming from BRICS.

I think we should be cautious and not underestimate how powerful BRICS could become.

Dan, if businesses are so profitable, and take up to 80% of the workers wealth, why not beat those greedy capitalists at their own game.

Start a business for yourself and give your workers 80% more than is being paid by competiting businesses. That way you can feel good about yourself and pay your workers a fair and equitable salary. Problem solved.

Now stop complaining and get to work!

Honest Abe says

Start a business for yourself and give your workers 80% more than is being paid by competiting businesses.

Then you can't compete. If your rivals are taking 80% of their workers' wealth generation, and you are only taking, say, 30%, they can use that difference to expand, advertise, buy more efficient equipment, etc. in a way you can't and will eventually bury you.

thunderlips11 says

they can use that difference to expand, advertise, buy more efficient equipment, etc. in a way you can't and will eventually bury you.

I would call that a combination of overhead (advertising) and capital equipment investment. I don't mind that.

But it's fundamentally different from executives taking that 50% differential and giving it to themselves through various mechanism and using it to buy yachts and other toys.

Honest Abe says

Start a business for yourself and give your workers 80% more than is being paid by competiting businesses. That way you can feel good about yourself and pay your workers a fair and equitable salary. Problem solved.

Costco already does this type of thing and has found that if you treat your workers better you actually create an overall more profitable company.

Treating people good is an investment and increases long term profitability, but corporate America general looks only at what they can do in a 1 to 4 month window to increase profitability. They often sacrifice long term viability for short term gain.

We are all self made men, but only the successful one's admit it. For the others- its everyone elses fault. In life there are only successes and lessons. Yet many don't learn what the lesson is attempting to teach. In other words, some repeat the same mistake again without learing the lesson.

No one can stop someone from becoming successful, although government puts up a blizzard of roadblocks - and then demonizes the successful ones.

In spite of that, there are so many self-made examples in America that they completly debunk the debunking of the self made man fallacy.

Honest Abe says

We are all self made men, but only the successful one's admit it. For the others- its everyone elses fault

I'm successful, and I say I couldn't have done it without the scientific method, the sewer system, the highway transportation system, the electric grid, and a million other things built before I was born.

Try traveling back in time to the stone age and being "successful" by modern standards. How many factories would you have built in the stone age? Would you even have lived pass 30?

Honest Abe says

No one can stop someone from becoming successful,

From Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates, there are many people who disprove that hypothesis. Not to mention that whole slavery thing that lasted several hundred years on this continent. How much opportunity did slaves have to become successful? Hell, George Zimmerman stopped Trayvon Martin from becoming successful in just a few seconds.

Never underestimate the power of being born at the right place and the right time. Had Warren Buffet been born in Ethiopia or rural China, he wouldn't be rich at all.

Yes, one is ultimately responsible for his or her success and we are all wholly responsible for our actions. But to suggest that it is merely sheer force of will that determines success like Green Lantern building a bridge with his mind is utterly wrong.

In order for a person to be successful one of two things must happen. Either the person must be given some privilege or there must be a fair system which allows all to succeed based on their own merit and hard work. I, personally, vote for the later.

Of course, for a fair system that allows all intelligent, talented, hard-working individuals to succeed, the can be no parasitic behavior and no rigging of games. This means that corporations cannot have enough power to dictate terms of employment. Nor can any corporations or oligopoly control the means of production or a public resource like the EM spectrum. This includes companies like Viacom and the large telecoms.

In fact, there are many things in our legal system from the DMCA to patent laws to fractional reserve banking to lobbying that prevent people from becoming self-made men because the parasites on top have the money and power to prevent competition and innovation.

Just take a look at clean energy. For over 100 years, we have subsidized oil companies. Do you really think that oil companies want any energy solution that allows individuals to cheaply produce pollution-free energy in their own backyards? That would kill all energy companies because they depend on centralized control of energy.

No one can stop someone from becoming successful, my ass.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/mL-AFSAIln0

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iEJNJ0rFSe8

Yeah, capitalism rewards hard work and ingenuity my ass. It rewards backstabbing and sabotaging your competitors and your partners. Now a system that actually did reward hard-work, productivity, and ingenuity, that would be worth sucking every cock in the universe to get.

Honest Abe says

No one can stop someone from becoming successful,

Utterly nonsense. Anyone that is truly successful will admit that luck played a very big part. Being in the right time and place to take advantage of the opportunities is the most important part. if Gary Kildell had been in his office at digital research when IBM came by no would have ever heard of Bill Gates, who's only product at the time was a very buggy basic interpreter for the altair, Instead Bill got to be the richest man on earth selling a very buggy knock off of Gary's os.

What you guys refuse to acknowledge is that the cream always rises to the top. "You can't keep a good man down". "He raised himself by his own bootstraps". "He did it as a walk-on". "She made it to the top without affirmative action". "He became successful without a college degree".

You guys can have all the pity parties you want, but you won't have any successful people in attendance. Good day.

OK Dan, you're right. Government - our wonderful, kind, caring, benevolent government has succeeded in preventing people from succeeding as you pointed out. Does that mean government is NOT our friend?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ideas-that-made--100-million.html

Darn, yet more stories surfacing about ordinary citizens overcoming the roadblocks imposed by govenment intervention and still becoming successful, self made men (or women).

I formally declare the myth of debunking the selfmade man myth is debunked. Its nothing more than liberal hogwash.

Honest Abe says

OK Dan, you're right. Government - our wonderful, kind, caring, benevolent government has succeeded in preventing people from succeeding as you pointed out. Does that mean government is NOT our friend?

You are misinterpreting what I've said. Of course our government is evil as I've said in many posts.

You keep thinking that our society either has to be Communistic with zero wealth difference and collective ownership of everything, or absolute fascism with no restraints on corporations. This is simply a false dichotomy. There are an infinite number of alternatives.

The fact is that any government or law is, by definition, socialism. The mere presence of government or law is the restriction of an individual's freedom to perform actions for the benefit of others. Laws that prevent stealing and burning down your neighbor's house are socialism.

The question is not whether we should have a socialistic economy or a capitalistic one. Nor is the question how much socialism or capitalism we should have. The question is how to structure socialism and capitalism within our economy.

Remember, that maintaining a military or a road system is socialism by definition!

What I want, is to eliminate the parasites who prevent individuals from succeeding by monopolizing public resources, bribing senators to pass laws they wrote for themselves, and otherwise preventing an even playing field. How exactly is this incompatible with your political and economic beliefs?

Honest Abe says

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ideas-that-made--100-million.html

Darn, yet more stories surfacing about ordinary citizens overcoming the roadblocks imposed by govenment intervention and still becoming successful, self made men (or women).

I noticed that every single one of those stories is about inventors, not the CEOs of fortune 500 companies. I've always said that the only way to truly produce millions of dollars of wealth is to invent something or be an entertainer.

Inventors and entertainers are not parasites. Even the baseball player who makes millions is producing the wealth he takes home. Contrast that to a Goldman Sachs CEO who destroys the economy, causes mass unemployment, wrecks people's retirement accounts, and still walks away with $18.6 million in compensation for one year. How exactly did he produce that wealth?

Finally, even those of us who do produce great wealth, can only do so because of the countless generations that came before us and brought us from the Stone Age to the Internet Age. We can only live in luxury instead of fighting for basic survival and dying horribly at 30 because of their efforts. That is why every generation, even yours, has a duty to make the world a slightly better place than you found it. What exactly about this philosophy do you find objectionable?

Dan, thanks for your well stated posts. I'm going on vacation. I'll respond when I return. DOWN WITH THE TSA.

Honest Abe says

I formally declare the myth of debunking the selfmade man myth is debunked.

I don't think that anecdotal fallacies can debunk anything.

Honest Abe says

DOWN WITH THE TSA.

On that we agree 100%. The TSA is pure evil.

John Bailo says

This is what Holden Caulfield would have said in 1989.

More like Tony Montana in 1983.

leoj707 says

Honest Abe says

I formally declare the myth of debunking the selfmade man myth is debunked.

I don't think that anecdotal fallacies can debunk anything.

I don't think Abe was using an anecdote. He was using some counter-examples, which is perfectly valid. However, this counter-examples don't represent the ruling 0.1% class. The counter-examples are inventors, not capital, and by that I mean

- venture capitalists
- speculators
- brokers
- financial product "developers"
- executives including CEOs
- lobbyists

I would say that all of the examples were workers, i.e. producers of wealth, rather than people who controlled funding, distribution, or a scarce resource (typically a public resource or one that is artificially scarce like land or diamonds).

The best thing about our economy is that inventors and real innovators -- and I say real because that term is often co-op'd by charlatan -- can still make it big. Of course, they don't make it 0.1% big. Even the best inventions don't make their inventors into billionaires.

So I would say that the noble success stories do not reflect the parasites that the 99% are upset with. They are entirely different groups.

I don't mind reducing regulation to help the small guy. There's a theory that states regulations actually help large corporations by eliminating competition from smaller firms that can't absorb the cost of regulation. And to a large extent, that is true.

However, "regulation" is just another word for "law". Don't you hate all those copyright/trademark regulations, those regulations preventing you from making "unauthorized" withdraws from banks, regulations preventing you from taking your next door neighbor's shinny things?

However, I would rather replace the existing regulations, which are simply micromanagement attempts, with smaller and simpler laws that address the fundamental problems rather than the symptoms. If a bill has a thousand tiny rules, big corporations will have the time and money to find loopholes. If a bill is short, simple, and to the cause of the problem, then big corporations can't avoid it.

The best example I can give is changing the capital gains tax to be: max(0.0, 1.00 - 0.01 * m) where m is the number of months an equity/property is held. This would eliminate all bubbles, micro-trading, and speculation as it would be impossible to profit from them. At the same time, it would greatly encourage real investment by making it tax free. And in doing so, it would greatly increase the stability and productivity of the economy.

And the reason it works is that it addresses the root cause of the problem. The problem is that short-term zero sum games dominate our financial markets. The solution is therefore to eliminate the very motivation for short-term zero sum games without harming long-term, positive sum games.

leoj707 says

John Bailo says

This is what Holden Caulfield would have said in 1989.

More like Tony Montana in 1983.

I thought the reference was obvious, but evidently not everyone got it, which surprises me because it's such a long quote that it goes a little too far for what I was using it for.