Topic: You work your butt off, and a rich dude does nothing and gets rich - how? - page 17. (Read 23837 times)

Answer the question notlambchop.

Oh Jesus, don't tell me it ain't true!  They've been lying to me all along?  MY America?!!
Now I'm almost afraid to ask, but are the streets paved with gold like they say, or is that just a bunch of phooey too?!

Is there anything left to live for, Ozziecoin?!

Unfortunately, this is true.  But you must also see that the financial system in America today is naturally advantaging those that hold assets against those that don't have any assets, and also those that don't have assets on a net basis. Meaning, asset minus liability = zero assets.  

The wealthy holding the assets are getting wealthier by virtue of the fact that they own assets.  This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised.

Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field.   Never have been.  Capitalism is about competition

We have crony capitalism in USA.  One idea is to increase inheritance tax.  Let people become as rich as their abilities allow.  But limit how much they can leave as inheritance

Please answer the question!

Even playing fields are the bedrock of capitalism. You don't have capitalism in America or anywhere in the world, you have Creditism. The entire economy is run on credit money. Only sound currencies based on the blockchain can be trusted.  

We are talking about not advantaging the rich. This has nothing to do with communism, socialism or capitalism. This has everything to do with EVEN PLAYING FIELDS.

So you're a communist?

See how well that worked for some countries?

Don't we all (almost) have the opportunity to work hard and get rich ? Don't we all play by the same rules ? I had friends in my elementary school who were dirt poor, one in particular didn't even own a tv, he wasn't even that smart - but he would learn everything the teachers gave him to learn, he wouldn't do anything else, he had very good grades, even tho he was made fun of for being so poor. Well, he continued to learn , to work hard on his studies, and today he is a big-ass wealthy manager and I know, personally other people like that.
I myself have a sub-avg. paying job, and without a loan, couldn't afford a place for myself (ty FRB). And because today's real estate is cheap, it can grow, it can even double,   so i'm enjoying the fruits of a value-increasing asset.
About inheritance, if you worked hard all your life shouldn't you be able to give your off-springs more than your neighbor who was lazy all his life and is therefor - poor ?
 So my answer would be: cause maybe they deserve it. But I do know we live in an unfair world, and a lot of people get rich by chance and not by work and effort.

What Is Cognitive Dissonance for 1000 ...

8 )

This is right.  My question is this: why should the rich get an extra advantage when they are already wealthy?  This goes against every fibre in my being. I believe in even playing fields, where people who work hard are justly rewarded.  FRB makes this impossible.  The landed wealthy will always stay wealthy, provided they don't gamble it away. 

Once you have a lot of money you just get more and more through interest. Plus getting inheritance. It's a big problem the rich get richer... And the poor have no capital to get going.

Aristocracy = inheriting the merits of your ancestors.  Inheriting class is no different from inheriting money.  Ur just jelly.

I kind of agree with the OP but see it differently.

Modern economic policy seems to be based on two irrational biases of people, the wealth effect and inflation apathy. When home owners see the price of their house go up, they spend more even though they still just own the same house. Meanwhile workers don't complain about their wages being worth less each year but if you asked them to take a 2% cut nominal terms they'd go on strike.

Politicians and bankers have known this since last century which is why they target 2% inflation to keep people working just in order to keep up and create full employment and avoid revolt.

The FRB now comes in because in order to keep doing this there has to be an increase in debt to pay the debts of those earlier in the ponzi scheme. Easy solution, pump house prices every time there's a recession so late comers have to borrow more to buy the same house. To do this you lower interest rates and the discount rate and assets go up. Those voters who bought houses before the dot com crash are sorted while anyone who didn't is screwed.

Even this is unsustainable and the GFC should have been the end but they kept it going a bit longer with QE, taking more money from the property poor and giving it to the asset rich. What happens next time people can't make their payments even at 2%? They can't lower rates any more so then we could get the depression that we think we've avoided?

lol OP, you're pretty late in realising what's going on Technically the rich aren't getting richer, all that's increasing is the amount of paper they hold unless they happen to be buying up lots of investments and goods that will hold their value, but even then, it's not really becoming 'worth' more, it's just getting more expensive.

Bitcoin is a classic example, I don't believe it's actually worth anything more than it was a couple of years ago, I just think that our currencies have been devalued so much it's made it much easier/cheaper to buy stuff with Bitcoin rather than paper money, this is also part of the real reason that Bitcoin has received so much hate, it's because it's making the bankers look really bad.

Go read this :

Robert Kiyosaki -
Unfair Advantage
The Power of Financial Education

Author: Robert Kiyosaki

Why do the rich get richer even in a financial crisis? In his new book the bestselling author of "Rich Dad Poor Dad" confirms his message and challenges readers to change their context and act in a new way. In this timely new book, Robert Kiyosaki takes a new and hard-hitting look at the factors that impact people from all walks of life as they struggle to cope with change and challenges that impact their financial world. In "An Unfair Advantage: The Power of Financial Education", Robert underscores his messages and challenges readers to change their context and act in a new way. Readers are advised to stop blindly accepting that they are "disadvantaged" people with limited options and challenge the preconception that they will struggle financially all of their lives. Robert's fresh approach to his time-tested messages includes clear, actionable steps that any individual or family can take, starting with education. Education becomes applied knowledge, a powerful tactic with measurable results. In true "Rich Dad" style, readers will be challenged to understand two points of view, and experience how financial knowledge is their unfair advantage.

Available here in eBook --> http://www.richdad.com/ebooks.aspx

I enjoy his books, and he explains a lot, in lame men's terms.

There was also a Book titled : Why We want you to be Rich {Exellent reading}

Enjoy

Yes, clearly we are at odds.  Any person can see that the money supply has inflated asset prices to kingdom come. It is not difficult to realise this has ADVANTAGED asset holders aka the wealthy.  

The money supply you allude to is not money, it is debt, which must be repaid.  You are not helping the poor - you are hurting them.  Why? Because the financialisation of the economy is ADVANTAGING the wealthy, who own assets, to the detriment of the poor, who do not own assets.

Your own charts show the widening wealth gap over the last twenty, nay thirty, years.



The last time we witnessed such WEALTH DISPARITY was just before the Great Depression.  Your position is completely unsupportable.

And for those that have not read it: My explanation is here: My explain

Please provide yours.

I'm not representing anybody.  I just think your thesis is barking up the wrong tree.  To give rise to middle class you need to destroy capital and at the same time have growth.  Growth could be birth growth.  

I never say screw the poor.  But your idea of poor and mine are totally different.  I don't want to limit money supply.  I want the poor to have access to money supply.  In order for someone w no assets to have assets they need access to loans & credit.  That requires FRB.

No one cares about that.  We all know, the money supply is being tampered with.  FRB is creating copious amounts of M3, advantaging the wealthy to the disadvantage of the poor who have no assets.

Are you representing the interests of those that have assets and are wealthy?  How can you justify this?!?  Are you saying screw the poor?

THESE ARE GENUINE QUESTIONS!  

I explained wealth inequality as a relation between (R) return on capital and (G) economic growth.  I'm a little drunk to explain.  But you are too obsess w FRB when you should compared historical data of wealth inequality and historical data of FRB.  See if you can spot any trends or correlations

Where is your explanation Twiifm?  I still don't see one.

Your own charts show that the rich have stayed rich.  

This is what you say yourself:


That's because the money supply is being inflated to high heaven.  And it is showing up in inflation AND rising asset prices.  See London, New York and Beijing!  Are you blind? or just working for the 1%?  This is NOT rocket science.

So, where is all that money going?  Asset prices, that's where!  What about the people who have no assets?  And the middle income earners with debts?  Why should rich people benefit at the expense of the rest of us?!?

This is truly shocking!  Your position is untenable!

Its only a problem if money inflates when nothing else in the economy does.  It is true that current wage inflation aren't in line w currency inflation.  And thats why people feel pinched.  However, the forces that contribute to this are not solely FRB.  But other macro factors

I have contention w the OPs thesis.  He is basically saying financial capital earns more than labor capital.  I don't disagree w this at all.  What I disagree his he uses this fact to frame an erroneous political agenda.  And then he portrays his crypto "ozziecoin" crypto as solution addressing the problem.  What looks altruistic seems like a off handed way to promote and pump his own ozziecoin