Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Correct. How do you think at least some of that wealth grows? Its not exactly by simple reinvestment in themselves.

Furthermore, along the same line of thought, if its nearly impossible for old money to get lost, how come those at the top do not wish to invest more of it on the same nation that makes it possible for them to stay on top? Selfishness perhaps?

Selfishness is a human construct.

[Zero Sum 305]

As are many other things.

[mawilson 2,133]

Correct. How do you think at least some of that wealth grows? Its not exactly by simple reinvestment in themselves.

Furthermore, along the same line of thought, if its nearly impossible for old money to get lost, how come those at the top do not wish to invest more of it on the same nation that makes it possible for them to stay on top? Selfishness perhaps?

Tapped out consumers, high labor costs, government regulations - add it all up, and you get a better return on your investment overseas (e.g. emerging markets).

That's not to say that they don't invest in the US - it is one of the safest investments and safety is important.

Edited April 13, 2011 by mawilson

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As are many other things.

Like pampers and frozen chickens, both very popular among the Marshallese living at Kwajalein Missile Range.

[Zero Sum 305]

Tapped out consumers, high labor costs, government regulations - add it all up, and you get a better return on your investment overseas (e.g. emerging markets).

That's not to say that they don't invest in the US - it is one of the safest investments and safety is important.

Yep. I would also add to that list lobbying politicians (themselves part of that 1%) to keep the top 1% earning 40% and not 39.9%, just to be 'safe.' Make up some theory about tax breaks for the wealthy as economic drivers of employment and you're all set to fool some voters, although these have never proven to work in the past. "Wealth begets wealth"

[mawilson 2,133]

Yep. I would also add to that list lobbying politicians (themselves part of that 1%) to keep the top 1% earning 40% and not 39.9%, just to be 'safe.'

I have no problem with the top margin rate increase to 39.6%. However, as I've pointed out many times, it's not where the big bucks are.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I am not sure of the point of the OP. Do you want to make more poor people rich or more rich people poor? Just how would you go about either one? Poor people are poor mainly because they lack the ambition to become rich. There isn't some sinister plot by rich people to keep the poor from "joining the club". People get rich the same way they always did - hard work, risk taking and good choices. Very few rich these days is old money.

[Zero Sum 305]

I have no problem with the top margin rate increase to 39.6%. However, as I've pointed out many times, it's not where the big bucks are.

Indeed, the big bucks are made by the top couple of tenths of the top 1%. Tax them at 99% (exaggeration) and they'd still get to be in the top couple of tenths of the top 1% without a diminished capacity to hold arcane rituals in cloaks, hold odd masked orgies, buy jet aircraft for their unborn children, or simply spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every week on Sour Worms.

[Zero Sum 305]

I am not sure of the point of the OP. Do you want to make more poor people rich or more rich people poor? Just how would you go about either one? Poor people are poor mainly because they lack the ambition to become rich. There isn't some sinister plot by rich people to keep the poor from "joining the club". People get rich the same way they always did - hard work, risk taking and good choices. Very few rich these days is old money.

No need for conspiracies, although if you've kept up with the thread, you'd realize that money is concentrated and those that have too much of it will do what they can to keep it- even though giving a little bit of it for the common good would in no way harm their top-tier status- old or new. And for that they do exercise quite openly a drive to retain the ability to make more and more- usually at the expense of those that actually are working hard.

[Zero Sum 305]

And poor people being poor due to a lack of ambition... the black and white reason for everything makes an appearance in the thread. If reality were so simple...

[JohnSmith2007 353]

And poor people being poor due to a lack of ambition... the black and white reason for everything makes an appearance in the thread. If reality were so simple...

You love that old fall back don't you, "its not as simple as you make it out". Just another way of getting out of an argument without arguing. It's a little fishdude like if you ask me.

It is as simple as that zero. The difference between a self made rich man and a self made poor man is ambition to be rich. Not ambition in general mind you, but ambition to be rich.

No need for conspiracies, although if you've kept up with the thread, you'd realize that money is concentrated and those that have too much of it will do what they can to keep it- even though giving a little bit of it for the common good would in no way harm their top-tier status- old or new. And for that they do exercise quite openly a drive to retain the ability to make more and more- usually at the expense of those that actually are working hard.

So for the "common good" you want to take from the rich and give to the poor? Where have I heard that line before?

And just what do you think we have been doing since the "great society"? We have transferd trillions of dollars to the poor and guess what, we still have poor!!!

[Zero Sum 305]

You love that old fall back don't you, "its not as simple as you make it out". Just another way of getting out of an argument without arguing. It's a little fishdude like if you ask me.

It is as simple as that zero. The difference between a self made rich man and a self made poor man is ambition to be rich. Not ambition in general mind you, but ambition to be rich.

It is or it isn't. In this case, its not that simple. Read the thread, or at least read the first line of the OP, just before the actual article.

As to speaking to the ambition of the poor man to become rich, well, that is obvious only in the case that the ambition is executed and matched by results- sometimes luck, sometimes being 'discovered', sometimes other things that result in advancement. This is always not the case and should be painfully obvious. Read what mawilson has stated on that particular aspect of the discussion here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You love that old fall back don't you, "its not as simple as you make it out".

HAL is stuck in a feedback loop. Just unplug him, wait two minutes, and he should reset. Soon he will be back to talking about his organic garden and trips to the gym again.

[Zero Sum 305]

So for the "common good" you want to take from the rich and give to the poor? Where have I heard that line before?

And just what do you think we have been doing since the "great society"? We have transferd trillions of dollars to the poor and guess what, we still have poor!!!

Robin Hood?

You want to make this thread something other than what it is. Its an identification of the obvious. Not what can, should, or even has to be done to change society to the liking of anyone in particular.

HAL is stuck in a feedback loop. Just unplug him, wait two minutes, and he should reset. Soon he will be back to talking about his organic garden and trips to the gym again.

I need to friend that person. Too bad this person doesn't participate here because from that kind of repetitive shot I can tell he or she got on your nerves. This is the internet, not a face to face debate.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It is or it isn't. In this case, its not that simple. Read the thread, or at least read the first line of the OP, just before the actual article.

As to speaking to the ambition of the poor man to become rich, well, that is obvious only in the case that the ambition is executed and matched by results- sometimes luck, sometimes being 'discovered', sometimes other things that result in advancement. This is always not the case and should be painfully obvious. Read what mawilson has stated on that particular aspect of the discussion here.

What, you think I just walked into the last page of the thread and started posting? I did read the thread, every single post. And I stand by my comment. The only difference between a rich man and a poor man is the ambition to become rich. That is as black and white as it gets. Just because the first thing someone tries to do to get rich fails the truly ambitious try something else rather than give up. It is the ambition to become rich that makes rich people, plain and simple.