What advantages should wealth convey?

Post Reply New Topic

No, the free markets in no way guarantee that the "best methods and products" rise to the top. That assumes two things: that people are both rational and informed, and, in my experience, people are rarely either of those things.

You're essentially just crossing your fingers and hoping, that in a long enough time line, it'll all work-out in the end. It's a question of how much damage is done while we wait for the magic "invisible hand of the free market" to fix everything.

Which it isn't.

In the aggregate over long time scales people tend to act in a rational and informed manner. In the short term or in small pockets of population there is no guarantee they do either.

But don't take my word for it. Ask the Sears-Roebuck corporation, or the A&P grocery chain, or blockbuster video, or the big 3 american automakers. All of these companies once had complete domination of their respective marketplaces and were either forced to adapt or perished at the hands of their competition.

You wish! If it was the law that all of my cash assets revert to the government upon my death, I would first convert all of my cash into things like real-estate, gold bouillon, diamonds, and stock ownership in several corporations. Then I would place all of these in my own LLC trust, and draw a stipend as the trust fund manager (so what if it's 100,000 or more each year?). My heirs would have minority trusteeship also, which would become majority shares upon my death. Then they would draw the stipend as Trust Fund Managers.

See how that works? It's all based on trusteeship of real property, and not on virtual cash squirreled away in some bank account, and not one penny changes hands from me to my heirs!

at best, the wealthy are the elephants and the rest of us are the grass. in today's amuuurica however, the wealthy fancy themselves as the lawnmowers of us grass. IOW they let their power go to their heads and imagine themselves to be gods superior to us mere mortal blades of grass.

Yes, exactly, I Wish.
I understand that the current systems in place are designed to make it as difficult as possible to tax the dead. I also hope for a future in which the dead (and their beneficiaries) don't have the vast majority of the wealth of the planet locked up, with everyone else suffering.

if i ran thing, dynastic wealth would be treated differently from ordinary income, i'd ban it past the 2nd generation, meaning the 2nd generation can benefit from the first generation's wealth, but not the third generation.

Well 90% of the time, the 3rd generation has lost it anyways.

https://www.nasdaq.com/article/generati ... -cm1039671

Sadly I haven't been able to find the origin of this widely quoted figure, so it's probably best taken with a grain of salt. But I haven't found anything disproving it either.

i'd guess that a small minority of new money manages to last until it is old money. the time to intervene is before that point. by that time is when it turns from mere financial power, into political power. riches, in a republic, should not confer that kind of power on a mere private citizen, that kind of aristocracy is what our ancestors fled in the old country.

If I want to give my money to my grandkids, then no one can stop me. It is MY money, not yours!

Well, I know that a lot of the Founding Fathers were opposed to inherited wealth. They considered it anti-republican:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-no ... t-with-you

Adam Smith had this to say about it:

Your money? You do realize that "your money" - be it metal coins, paper or digital, are essentially printed by the State?
Central banks and in earlier days, kings and queens, are the ones who make "your" money.

Then they let those money circulate in society.

If you want a share of those money, you have two options available:

* Borrow them from someone who have them.
* Someone with the money giving it to you.

In any case, you have to pursuade someone to let you borrow or give money to you.
To do this, you often need to fulfill some requirements - which the ones with the money have the upper-hand in this say.

They can let you work for them, then give you money.

If you do not want to or cannot work for the money, your troubled. Ultimately, you will die.

In most cases then, you have no choice if you want to live. You have to abide by the requirement of the ones who have the money you need.

This no-real-choice is what we call WAGE-SLAVERY.

Why is it to ask for too much, to have the STATE intervene and regulate which requirements those with money can can ask of you?

Consider this situation:

You're born poor.
You live in a poor part of society.

You want money to get away to a better place.

But the ones who can give you the money (who inherited lots and lots of them in the first place) won't. They will only give you food for work.

You're essentially a slave.

It all comes down to first-past-the-post principle of the resources on Planet Earth.

Since we all live on Planet Earth, why is it unfair to ask for a democratic sharing of the resources?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B67TuUwghqE

As Studies on Paraplegics and Lottery Winners Go; Money may not make a Difference in Happiness;
But Surely 'Enough' Money Will Set You Free From Being a Slave to someone else's Play of Life;
Whether you want to be included in their Play or Do Not. Being Free is What Nature Does Best.

I see absolutely No Advantage in an excess of Money/Stuff More than to Survive Comfortably as i do now; in Fact,
A Lottery Win By my Wife would just be a Distraction For my Style of Heaven Within to Give and Share for Free.

On the Other Hand, She Would take the Hours and Effort To Distribute the Money; Money does convey advantages
of Not Being Slave to the Play of others; but as far as Happiness goes; it is absolutely meaningless to me as i've
seen both Sides of that Story; All the Money I'll ever Need living in Hell and Heaven too; The Money Made Zero
Difference other than Basic Survival; just at it does today and that's it for me at least; People Will Love Whatever
they Value; Could Be A Statue of a Man Hanging on A Cross; but really most people i see Worship an Idol of Money too.

Material Wealth is Largely Immaterial to Internal Wealth; all the Colors We May Gain in Holy and Sacred Meaning
and Purpose in Life that We Co-Create or Do not. Now is all that Exists; Now is only as Deep and Long as
The Colors of Existence we Move, Connect, and Co-Create; Regulating Emotions, Integrating Senses in Mind and
Body Balance of Bliss in Flow: Satori, Prana, Nirvana, Tao, Kundalini Rising Forms for Essence Similar Now for Real.

When i Worked for Money for 33 Years, i worried about money a whole lot; Basically, no part of Happiness then.

You Do What You Have to Do to Be Set Free for Your own Style of Self-Authenticity; Ascending Transcending
Flow; Sure, the Art of Heaven within to give and share for Free too; if that is what you attempt to do too.

Do i think i am more important than anyone else for having enough; ha! that's ridiculous; yet, i experience
People Saluting me and even Bowing Down to me with their Hands Folded only for the Fun of an 11,881 Mile
Public Dance in 72 Months. Fame Doesn't Impress me either but Smiles do; Real Hell is not remembering
what a Smile feels like. Real Heaven is effortlessly Bringing Smiles to other folks wherever you go where
like a 'Pavlov Dog', Just the Sight of You Entering any Public Place in the Metro Area brings a Smile to
their Face. That's a Skill Worth Keeping and Exercising the Rest of Your Life; Heaven is Bringing
A Smile to someone else's Face as it comes in Multiples off Hundreds and Thousands as Light
of Joy Grows even though no one need know Your Name; never making a Penny off the Joy of others Free.

Second Part of Comment:

Writing is Fun; as i rest my Feet that Bring Smiles to others for Real.

Occasionally, My Writing Brings Joy to Others; but it's like the Dance;
i do it for the Eternal Now of Ever Expanding Colors of Life and Loving
All that Life is the Potential to be more now. My priorities are totally different
than Close to Everyone i know; but they work for me as what i feel and sense is as real as it gets for me.

Generally Speaking, the Public Audience View of me is the Happiest Person they've ever Seen in the World.
Generally Speaking, they have no idea if i have a Penny to My Name or even any Name at all but A Dance i do.

Generally Speaking, From what've i've seen of the World, i've Never Met a more Miserable Person (me) in Hell or a
Happier one now in Heaven Real Within For a bit over 6 Years now; much better than the 66 Months in Hell before;
BuT AGaiN, Money, the Least of My Worries; enough of that is just enough for me to continue to LiVE iN Heaven NoW.

More and Less i am A Real Version now of "Mr. Blue SKeYes" to Heaven's Fruition Real; i study Happiness; i make it Real.
'Groot Hair' Doesn't Care about ALL Your Money and Stuff; On the Other Hand, Love what You Will That's How it Works.

Love it All; There's Only Up More Than Down; Obviously, For those Who See and Hear 'This Wind' Within For Real.

On Top of that Science Shows That Women are Least Attracted to a 'Fat Wallet' and Most Attracted to Fearless
Confidence; Trust me; i ain't in this Game to impress any Dudes; yet Still 'they' Hi5 me now for they see 'THE REWARD'..

Occasionally, The Women Low5 me or whatever comes Below in Bootie Dances as such; My Wife doesn't care as she
Hardly ages; she doesn't spend her life worrying about money either; but more than me; it doesn't even 'cross' my HeART.

Hehe; 'Trumps' Gives me the Giggles; such a Big Rich Frown; so far so far away from anything associated Real
With Heaven's Gate Now; But largely, inconsequential for those Behind Opaque Windows From Heaven's Existence;
often Colored With Green Paper iDolls of Money or Human's on Crosses; whatever they Love to Love they Will Do.

Once the money is mine — whether by earning, gifting, or inheriting — it is my money, and no one else’s. Ownership of property by the giver ends with the transfer of said property to the receiver — that is, once I am paid for the goods I produce, those goods belong to the customer and the money belongs to me. At that point, I surrender my right of claim to the goods, and the customer surrenders his right of claim to the money. That makes the goods his and the money mine.

The way you describe it, you could sell some farmland to me and still expect to harvest my crops from my land. That would simply not happen. Once the land is mine, your entry onto it is trespassing and your removal of my crops from my land is theft.

In the same way, once you pay me my wages, your claim to my money ends, and your removal of my money from my ownership is theft.

My money, my choice, not yours.

The emphasis by bold-text in the last sentence is by me, not Fnord.

Typical capitalist logic uses statements like this -- very clear, reasonable, simple examples of a sale of some goods between two individuals, to make a point. That's fine. But then they use those simple examples to extend the reach of capitalism to much more complex scenarios where the ethics are much less clear, or clearly go against capitalism if examined in all their complexity.

For my part, I think that if you, Fnord, personally create an object from materials you gathered (just for the sake of example, let's say you chop down a tree and use the wood to make a chair), you can keep that chair or sell it to a buyer for whatever the buyer is willing to pay, and that you should be rewarded with the money that buyer pays. And in turn, it's fine if you spend that money on anything you wish. That all makes sense to me.

But one of my main arguments in this thread is that this example bears little resemblance to most commerce in the world today. Most commerce involves the transfer of products that were produced by corporations, and the funds exchanged for those products are not generally given to the people who actually produce the products or gather the resources. The funds, for the most part, are given to the "owners" and "shareholders" in the corporation, who did a tiny fraction of the work involved in making the products (indeed, in some cases the owners didn't have a hand in the work at all). The people who actually made the products are left with an amount of compensation insufficient for daily living.

That is criminal, that is theft, that is depriving the people who created a product of the value derived from its sale.