Re: Transportation and the energy economy, was Re: Just an FYI....Atlanta Police stalk Critical Mass

In article <g86mkk$7s9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g805kq$is3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7qpt2$jg3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7k8na$slf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7gh17$5hk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7g4rm$rgm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7efml$mal$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7dgji$ksn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, junker@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
Tom Sherman wrote:

I thought I was using very mild and restrained language.
And you were.

Most of the wealthy people I know (and I know a few) are very
politically active, to their own detriment if they are not.
I know many from my business and community work. Most of the wealthy
people I know put a lot more effort and money into charity work than
political activities.

It is only charitable if it is anonymous. Otherwise it is
self-promotion/advertising. Say what you will about Islam, but Muhammad
was correct on that point.
That's laughably naive about what, and who, supports the non-profit
sector. Anonymous donors would not be able to leverage their own
personal donations to persuade their peers to give. Most fundraising
campaigns start by finding high profile "leadership donors" who will
step up to set a good example for their friends and colleagues. These
leaders are invaluable in getting the ball rolling, and are essential to
the success of many fundraising efforts.

And the last time I looked, nobody has yet discovered how to be
invisible -- or to serve on the board of non profit organization
anonymously. If we took all the movers and shakers who serve on non-
profit boards out of the equation to preserve their anonymity, these
organizations would be suffer devastating losses of leadership, vision,
ability and networking.
Why does someone have to be a donor to serve on a board?
Who said they did? Certainly not me!

Then why did you bring up a totally irrelevant point?
Serving on a board is far from irrelevant. Nobody, no matter how much
money they have, has more than 7 days in every week. They may be able
to give millions, but their time is finite and limited. And in many
cases, their talents are invaluable to the organizations they serve.
They don't serve on these boards to promote themselves or advertise --
they do it because they are community minded, good citizens.
That in and of itself does not necessarily constitute a charitable act.
So, in your opinion, it is not necessarily charitable to contribute
one's time and talents on a regular basis to support a worthwhile
cause?? You're clutching at straws.
Charity refers to helping the indigent. There can be other worthwhile
causes (that improve the quality of life), but they are not charity. For
example, converting an abandoned strip mine to a park with mountain
biking trails would improve quality of life, but not be a charitable act.
And your point is . . . ?

Now, one more time. So, in your opinion, it is not necessarily
charitable to contribute one's time and talents on a regular basis to
support a worthwhile cause, such as a hospital foundation, the United
Way, UNICEF, and similar organizations? What's your answer?
That would depend on the motive. If the contribution was made for the
sake of appearing charitable, or if the person doing so made an effort
to advertise the fact, then it would not be a charitable act.

What evidence do you have that wealthy people who contribute money and
time on a regular basis do so for the sake of appearing charitable?

When their names appear on "thank you" lists, that is a pretty good
indication. These lists usually have multiple people named "Anonymous"
on them.

You're continuing to argue from a false premise -- that charitable gifts
and charitable works are not really "charitable" unless they're
anonymous. But this just shows that you have no experience with the
charitable giving world, in which wealthy people are encouraged to make
"leadership" gifts to set a charitable giving benchmark to encourage
others to give, and to give more. Hint: it works, and it helps people
who need help.

For example, here's the list of Directors for the United Way of NYC.
Which of them are contributing their time to appear charitable, and
which are doing it out of genuine concern for the well-being of people
in their community?

How should I know - I do not live in NYC (whew!) and do not follow the
social scene.

So, you don't know how many of them are donating their time and talents
out of motivation to give something back to the community, but you're
prepared to continue to apply your negative stereotype to all of them.
Well done!

Susan L. Burden

Joseph A. Cabrera
Executive Vice President
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

Harry D. Carson

Anthony M. Carvette
President & Chief Operating Officer
Structure Tone, Inc.

William S. Conway
Senior Executive Vice President
& Chief Marketing Officer
Mutual of America

Marianne D. Cooper
Vice President
Public Sector Americas
IBM Corporation

Lesley Daniels Webster

Stephen J. Dannhauser
Chairman
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Donald F. Donahue
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation

André Dua
Principal
McKinsey & Company

Gerald P. FitzGerald
President
Aviation Perspectives LLC

Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr.
Healing of the Nations

Dr. Matthew Goldstein
Chancellor
The City University of New York

Thomas S. Johnson
Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
GreenPoint Financial Corp. & GreenPoint Bank

Terry J. Lundgren
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Macy's Inc.

Andrew J. Parsons
Director Emeritus
McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Karen B. Peetz
Executive Vice President, Corporate Trust Services
The Bank of New York Mellon

Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta

Karl B. Rodney
Publisher
CARIB NEWS

Rossana Rosado
Publisher & Chief Executive Officer
El Diario-La Prensa

Rabbi Peter J. Rubinstein
Senior Rabbi
Central Synagogue

Nancy Wackstein
Executive Director
United Neighborhood Houses of New York

Randi Weingarten
President
United Federation of Teachers


Cheryle A. Wills
President
JALAD Group

Which of these people have you smeared with your stereotypes?

I'll bet you don't know. And that's my point. You're smearing all of
them with your stereotyping comments.

Java Man has a logic understanding problem if he thinks I have "smeared"
all of them.

But you did. Here's what you wrote:

==================
"It is only charitable if it is anonymous. Otherwise it is
self-promotion/advertising."
==================

For example, if someone volunteers to help with maintenance
of the local ATB trails, I would consider that a positive act, but not a
charitable act.

Why is this so hard for Rick the Java Man to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to stop smearing people about whom you know
nothing, simply because they're rich?

To be extremely rich, they have taken more than their fair share from
society.

How do you propose to measure "their fair share"? You still haven't
said.

Have anyone of them cured or prevented a major social ill
primarily through their own talents and labor - then they would deserve
considerable riches through their contribution. Please show one such
example.

Since when is that a criterion against which people's contribution to
society is to be judged? Has ANYONE, ANYWHERE "cured or prevented a
major social ill primarily through their own talents and labor"?


Furthermore,
most non-profit organizations do not serve those who can not take care
of themselves.
Most? On what do you base that? And what about the ones that do? Ones
with which I'm familiar, like Parkinsons Society of Canada, Society for
Children and Youth, Salvation Army, Vancouver Food Cooperative, etc,
etc?

The list of non-profit organizations is extensive - special interest
clubs, social networking organization, professional societies, etc, most
of which have nothing to do with what are normally considered charitable
works.
So what? That doesn't detract from the many people who contribute their
time and money to charitable organizations that do good work for people
who need help.
More points irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is that most
non-profit organizations are NOT charities.
The point of discussion is much simpler than that, and you're rapidly
proving my point -- that you continue to deny charitable work done by
individuals, and to denigrate the character of many, for one simple and
unfair reason -- that they are wealthy. That's blatant and malicious
stereotyping.
I never wrote that.
I never claimed you wrote it. But you implied it. And you have
denigrated charitable work done by individuals, and the character of
many, simply because of their wealth.

I never implied that, and to claim so is mistaken or a lie. Or maybe the
Java Man can read minds like "Dear Carl" does?

Please desist with the dishonest debating tactics.
It's not dishonest. You implied it.

No I did not, and to continue claiming so is an (false) accusation of lying.

Now Java Man is falsely accusing me of lying.

You've made sweeping and unflattering generalizations about wealthy
people continually throughout this thread, and have offered no evidence
to back up your claims.

No, Java Man simply refuses to follow the logic, because it counters his
built in social conditioning.

"Logic"? Where? You've defined logic time after time.

That is stereotyping. You actually know very little about what the very
rich do, but you are prepared to make sweeping generalizations about
their motives and actions.

I know the rich take more from society than they give.

How do you "know" that? You'd need a way to measure people's
contribution to the wealth of society to make that judgement, and you
can't suggest one.

I also know that
in the supposed democracies, the vast majority of the rich support
political positions that enrich themselves further at the expense of
people who work for a living.

How do you know that? You'd need a way to measure people's contribution
to the wealth of society to make that judgement, and you can't suggest
one.


But if you'll come right out and admit that many wealthy people make
large charitable donations because they are community minded, and that
many wealthy people donate their precious time and considerable talents
to charitable causes for the same reason, I'll withdraw my charge.

Why should I admit this when there is no evidence for it being true?

Why do you smear millions of people without evidence that what you're
saying applies to them?

See above. Duh.

I did "see above", for example, where you wrote this:

==================
"It is only charitable if it is anonymous. Otherwise it is
self-promotion/advertising."
==================

That's a blanket smear against anyone serving on the Board or committee
of a charitable organization since one can't serve on a Board or
committee anonymously. It also smears anyone who has made a charitable
donation that is not anonymous.

Of course, since you believe only anonymous acts can be charitable, you
wouldn't know about any of them, and therefore there's no evidence of
them, correct? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You've defined the context to
maintain your illusions.

Taking more than one's contribution has nothing to do with charitable
acts. Duh.

How do you measure contribution? You still haven't defined the logic of
your own argument.

Are the rich giving away enough of their wealth that they have to
decrease their discretionary spending on themselves? If not, they are
merely giving away part of their wealth that is so immense that they do
not need it.

So, are you adding another quirky criterion for charitable gifts -- that
if you don't need what you're giving, it isn't charitable???

With a few notable exceptions, the very rich support right-wing policies
that increase the power and wealth of the rich at the expense of others.
Unless you believe that the rich are too stupid to know this and are
simply being fooled by the politicians they support?

So how about it? Are you willing to admit it?

Why should I admit to something for which there is no proof, and many
indications to the contrary? That would be illogical.

No, that would be ignorance of the facts.

So now Java Man presents himself as arbiter of the facts?

No, of your tortured logic.

A
rich person could do a charitable act, but only if it is anonymous. A
public act is a form of self-promotion.
Now you're making up your own definition of charity. S
No, the definition I am using is accepted by billions of people.

Since it is impossible to contribute one's time and talents anonymously,
and contributing one's time and talents to help others IS charitable,
those billions of people are wrong.

Now Java Man has smeared billions of people. Pot, kettle, black.

No, because they are wrong.

It is
only "Western" society that generally confuses self-promotion and
conscious salving with charity.

Perhaps you'd be happier in "Eastern" society?

In practical terms, I was never given a chance to find out.

"Given a chance"? What's preventing you from taking the chance?

Also note that committing a charitable act is a good thing when
considered by itself, it is only one factor in determining the overall
good. If a person makes billions of dollars exploiting persons in
another country, but donate hundreds of thousands to charity in his/her
own country, the latter act is still charitable, but does not balance
out the crime of the former.
So what? Are you saying that the majority of wealthy Americans exploit
people in other countries?
Indeed they do, since the international financial and trade structures
run by the World Bank, IMF and WTO work to exploit persons in developing
nations. And these organizations are run by the same corporate interests
that provide the basis of the wealth of the rich USians.

And what would the "basis of the wealth" of rich Americans be, according
to you?

Please read more carefully. The answer is in what I wrote.

What you wrote is unquantifiable. You can't comment on relative value
without knowing how to quantify value.

And the organization that serve the truly needy should
not exist, since their very existence indicates that the society has
failed in its moral duty to guarantee provision for those people.
Tell the people who put their time and effort into operating these
worthwhile societies that their efforts "should not exist" and maybe
they'll quit. ;-)
Do not play stupid. Organized society has a DUTY (as the Western
European countries have partially realized) to care for the indigent.
But no, some would rather deny their responsibilities so as to make
others dependent on their "charity", which is not charity at all, but
just another means to power.
So your bottom line is that wealthy people who serve on charitable
boards and make charitable donations are just making the indigent
dependent as a means of weeding power? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You win
the "glass half empty" award of the week!
Did not the feudal lord hold the power of life and death over the serfs?
Feudal lords and serfs? I think you've spent too much time playing
Dungeons and Dragons.
I think 1983 was the last year I participated in D&D games on a regular
basis.

The point is that while the names may change, the behavior does not. The
lust for power over others does not disappear just because a country
makes a public proclamation that it is a classless democracy.

The modern quest for power among the permanent upper class is nothing
more than neo-feudalism. The lust for power among some knows no bounds.
Is that in the script for D&D?
No, that is behavior of certain hominids over at least the last 7000
years or so.

They must
work very hard to fend off codes, rules, laws, ordinances, and statutes
that would reduce their wealthy lifestyle to poverty. If they sit on
their hands all hell would break loose.
Right. What's wrong with these people? They act as though they believe
they have a right to keep what they've earned!

Earned? How are they so much more productive on a personal level to
contribute that much more to the benefit of society?

Good question. They provide ideas, vision and leadership, and they take
significant risks with their time and often their money, to start and/or
grow businesses that provide useful products and services for society,
as well as jobs for many employees. Take them out of the equation and
we'd be worse off.

Yes, it takes a lot of vision and leadership to use inherited money to
make more money by hiring others to do the work.
Are you saying you believe that most wealthy people inherited their
money??? One wonders where you get your information.

Look at any list of who the richest people are, and how the came by
their money.
Provide the list.
Take a look at this list:
<http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html>.


Notice how many are listed as inheritance.
In the first 4 pages, less than 4% are listed as inheritance. What's
your point?

Yes, but many more of those are inheritance based, if one looks further.
How many more? What percentage of the total? Let's see what small
percentage it takes before you're prepared to stereotype an entire group
of people.
Where is your list of self-made people? The barriers to entry to the
upper classes are immense (and intentionally so). To think that most of
the rich are self-made solely on their merits of intelligence and
commitment to work is ridiculous.

Don't try to dodge the question. You used the Forbes list of the 400
richest Americans, and crowed "Notice how many are listed as
inheritance."

When I pointed out that less than 4% on the first 4 pages were listed as
inheritance, you countered with "Yes, but many more of those are
inheritance based, if one looks further."

I asked you what percentage of the list got their money from
inheritance. YOU DECLINED TO ANSWER, YET YOU REMAIN WILLING TO
STEREOTYPE ALL WEALTHY PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF THEM WARRANT YOUR CRITICISM.

Well, they sure as hell are NOT making the money working overtime at an
hourly job, solving a major problem of society, or anything else through
their own labor, but instead are taking a large share of the profits of
the labor of many.

But you still haven't offered a way to measure the relative contribution
of labour, capital, innovation, leadership, vision, etc.

Then look at how many married
into money, are members of families that run businesses established
several generations ago, came from a background that would allow
entrance into the proper prep schools and private colleges to make
connections with the "right" people, etc.
Make a list of 400 Americans chosen at random, with the only stipulation
being that they have the same age distribution as the Forbes list.
Many of them will also have been given or inherited money from parents,
and many of those who went to college will have been supported by their
parents.

But how many of those will derive almost all their income from inherited
wealth? Very few, no?
How many? It's your list. You're making the claims. Is it the
majority of the list? What is the percentage? Are you stereotyping all
the rest because of the actions of the minority? Give is a glimpse into
the logic behind your labels.
Why are you arguing for notions so ridiculous that they are hardly worth
considering?

You still haven't answered the question.

Why should I answer silly questions?

Without answering, you can't justify what you've been saying.

Outside of professional athletics, one does not gain entry
into the positions that would allow one to become wealthy without the
right social connections. Those who become rich on the basis of
innovation that provides an added value to society are a tiny minority.

I see you've also defined this so you can squirm out of it by using your
own definitions. "An added value to society"? Who decides? If people
buy a service or product, do you accept their judgement that it "adds
value" to for them? Or are you the only judge of what "adds value"?

If Java Man can not understand the concept of adding value, he should
re-educate himself before continuing the discussion.

I understand it well enough to know that your laughably simplistic
definition is completely unworkable.

How about you? Did you, or do you expect to, inherit anything from your
parents?
Neither of my parents has any real estate holdings, significant cash
reserves, financial instruments, etc.
So, they don't own a home that you may inherit?

Both my parents live with other people who have the ownership of the
property. In fact, when I had to drop out of college for medical
reasons, I did not have any place to go, so I worked two jobs (about 70
hours a week on average) just to pay for medical bills, rent and food.

Right now I would get an almost 20
year old automobile (cash value ~$500) a few bicycles, some tools, etc.
All together, it might pay most of the cremation expenses.
How noble of you!
Not noble, just a fact.

At least I can say that I have earned everything I have. Can you say the
same?

I certainly can.

Then why are you arguing against your class interests?

I don't have "class interests".

So you never got a single thing through family connections?

Sure, I got a job in a union operation while going through university
because my father knew the business agent.

As a famous example, Donald Trump is listed as making his money through
real estate. What is not listed is that his father was a
multi-millionaire real estate developer, which certainly gave Mr. Trump
advantages that someone growing up in a trailer park would not have.

Furthermore, some of these people are far less than ethical.
Again, on a list of 400 Americans chosen at random, with the only
stipulation being that they have the same age distribution as the Forbes
list, you'll also find may who are "far less than ethical".

So what does this unethical strawman have to do with the discussion at hand?
Everything. You've singled out an entire group of people for being "far
less than ethical", but you have no evidence that they're any different
from another group which you fail to criticize only because they aren't
wealthy. Ergo, you're stereotyping.
Nonsense. If they are taking more than what they contribute to the added
value of an enterprise, they are being unethical. Simple logic, really.

Oh, that sticky question rears its head again! How do you propose to
define people's contribution to the value of an enterprise? You still
haven't provided an answer that makes sense.

I am sorry if Java Man can not figure out what each person in an
enterprise contributes.

Duck, dodge. It's not my job to justify your arguments. It's your's,
and you've failed to do so.

One member
of the list (who I will not name due to ongoing litigation) is a
complete *** who uses LLCs to screw over contractors working on his
developments. Easy to make money when you only pay 70-80% of the agree
upon contract amounts.
Again, any list of 400 Americans chosen at random is likely to include
some who are engaged in litigation or being prosecuted.

So what? The strawman is complaining about being dragged out of bed.
It's not a strawman at all. It shows how you're treating wealthy
people differently from others.
Are you being obtuse?

No, just persistent. You continue to apply a negative stereotype to an
entire group of people, smearing all those to whom it doesn't apply.
And you're apparently willing to continue to smear them.

Java Man makes up his own (non)facts, and then asks questions based on
the false premises. How is that a way to continue a discussion?

You're the one who wrote:

==================
"It is only charitable if it is anonymous. Otherwise it is
self-promotion/advertising."
==================



The ownership of unearned wealth IS a moral issue,
particularly when it is an the expense of the suffering of others.

What is "unearned wealth"?

Wealth that does not come from one's own labor. Duh.

Once again, you've failed to explain your theory of value in a way that
could actually be used to support your own argument.

The ethics and honesty of the wealthy aren't much different, on average
than other Americans in the same age distribution.

Ignoring the ethics of taking more than one's fair share of the fruits
of labor.
If you'd finally come through with your suggestion on how to value
people's contributions, we might have something to talk about. Will you
finally do so?
Being obtuse again? The fair share is what one's labor contributes to
added value. DUH!

Please be specific. How do you value labour? Is the janitor's hour of
labour equivalent in value to the CEO's? How about the secretary vs. the
engineer? How about the receptionist vs. the salesman? How do you
value their contributions?

For someone who claims to have business experience, Java Man certainly
asks a lot of simple questions.

If they're so simple, why can't you answer them?

Since many companies are well run by persons making a upper middle class
income, why could these same people not run larger companies at the same
salary?

They could. But some of them would be underpaid. And that wouldn't be
fair, now would it.

Does it really require compensation in the ten of millions per
year to retain a competent manager? Why do even the incompetent CEO's of
large companies still receive compensation in the tens of millions, when
better managers could be had for less than 5% of the salary? Are not
overpaid top managers then taking more than what they contribute?

Some of them certainly ARE taking more than they contribute. But that
doesn't justify your blanket statements about all wealthy people.

You also seem to be under the impression that leaders just "hire others
to do the work", and there's nothing much to it. Why do you think most
businesses fail? Hint: running a successful business ain't easy. And
growing one into a multi-billion dollar business is frightfully
difficult and beyond the capabilities of all but a very few.
Or just collusion and monopolistic practices.
Generalizations. Be specific. Why not post a list of successful
companies with high growth rates, and note which ones got their through
collusion and monopolistic practices?
Start out with Standard Oil, and John D. using extortion to force
smaller companies to sell out on his terms.
And you extrapolate that to all companies? Another fine example of
stereotyping.
In the free market, the company that treats its workers the worst will
have a competitive advantage. The extrapolation from there is obvious.
First, we don't have a free market. It's a regulated market.
It is a market with rules to benefit certain parties at the expense of
others.

And I suppose OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, and consumer
safety regulations exist to benefit corporations, right? ;-)

If the right wing has its way, all those would be eliminated.

So, you've declined to argue your previous point

Furthermore, those are only secondary regulations that have no real
effect on the way the economy is structured. I would have thought a
business person would realize that.

NO EFFECT????? That shows how ignorant you are about the structure of
the economy.

Look at the regulations (and lack thereof) concerning the use of capital.

To which regulations are you referring? What, specifically, about the
use of capital do you think needs more regulation?

And
second, I don't accept your naive belief that treating workers worse
confers a competitive advantage. There are some industries in which
that is true, but there are far more industries where it isn't.
Really? Which industries are those?

Take an economics course or two and perhaps you'll gain some insight
into this.

When there is a surplus of labor (as the international bankers make sure
there is), workers have to accept bad treatment, since they need the
wages for survival (why the right hates social safety nets).

Ah, a conspiracy theorist! International bankers are making sure there
is a surplus of labour! BWAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!


This allows
employers to drive down wages and still keep employees. When services
and products are chosen solely on cost, the company with the lowest paid
workers will win. This is even happening in occupations that used to be
considered professional.

OK, Karl.

As for the rest, why should I do your work for you?
It's not my work. You're the one making the claims about the evils of
corporations and the wealthy. And how do you back it up? You name two
companies and use them to smear all the rest.

Someone is ignoring the fundamental point of taking more than one's
share of the wealth created by labor.
Who would that be? I'd love to discuss it with you, but you still
refuse to tell us how you would value people's contribution.
See above.

Show me an example
of someone who has contributed so much to a companies success without
using the skilled labor of subordinates, the public infrastructure, etc.
Show me a successful company that came into being without the vision,
leadership and personal risk of a smart and determined founder.
Plenty of corporations have been created as spin offs of other
corporations, by mergers, etc - all games played by holders of capital.
You make it sound so easy! Why aren't you rich? ;-)

Because I did not start out with inherited capital - DUH!

Sure, blame it on your parents! ;-)

Neither did Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Ralph
Lauren, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison, Paul Allen, Kirk Kerkorian,
David Geffen, Jack Taylor, or David Murdock. But they're all
billionaires.

Did they start out as white trash sharecroppers, with all the social
disadvantages that implies? Have they alway ONLY taken what they
contributed to an enterprise in the form of labor?

Gee, I wasn't aware that one had to start out as a "white trash
sharecropper" to qualify as a self-made person. ;-)

Why are they so outnumbered by old money billionaires?

It generally takes more than a single generation to go from "white trash
sharecropper" to billionaire.

Believe me, it's harder than it looks. You obviously have no idea how
difficult it is to create a successful business.
Pretty easy to inherit a successful business, eh?

It's just as easy to run an inherited business into the ground. The
business landscape is littered with failure stories in which "son
inherits thriving business and tanks it".

HAH! Proof that the rich are not genetically superior.

I don't buy that the rich are genetically superior, or that many of the
rich believe it, either. But your statement fails the test of logic
anyway.

The really rich put the money in trust funds and hire expensive lawyers
to make sure their spoiled offspring can not deplete the family fortune.

No doubt, some of them do. Do you think inheriting wealth should be
illegal?

Could a successful company be built in a state of anarchy in a country
with no infrastructure? Is that why we see so many successful
corporations develop in states like Afghanistan and Somalia - they
should be great places since there is no effective government
regulation?
Straw man.

Says the expert in strawmen?

No, it is not an irrelevant point.
I said it was a strawman, not an irrelevant point. Learn the difference.

Who made you God so your word became fact?

If you disagree with the accepted definition of "strawman", feel free to
create a new word for your new idea.

It is not at all a straw man to point out that a functional society is
necessary for a business to do well.

So, you still don't know what a strawman is, do you. Why not look it
up?

I would never argue to the contrary. Companies benefit greatly from the
infrastructure of a well developed economy.

But the companies wish to transfer the burden to paying for the
infrastructure to labor.

No successful large scale businesses
have ever been created without the conditions of a stable society
providing supporting infrastructure, contrary to the false myth of the
USian right that claims financial success is solely due to the acts of
the individual.
Whose myth? Yours? Please don't make such things up.

Listen to the damn radio or television some time.

Ah, that explains your misunderstandings! ;-)

My misunderstanding of what propaganda the right wing promotes as policy
to the public? Don't be silly.

The claim is made by the pundits on the payroll of the rich that the
rich are more deserving of wealth than other people.

What pundit says the rich are more deserving of wealth than other
people?

Some so called
Christian ministers have also pandered to the rich by promoting a
similar idea - God rewards the morally worthy with wealth (and forget
what that Jesus guy actually said on the matter).

Let's leave religion out of this. There's nothing logical about it.

The right wing
commentators invariably promote the idea that the rich should pay less
in taxes because paying more is punishing them for their "achievements";
which ignores the contributions of labor and society.

So what? The left wing commentators promote the idea that earned wealth
should be expropriated by the state. But neither side is completely
"right" or "wrong". Ideology will not help to create and manage an
economy to maximize quality of life for citizens of the country.

When one ideology dominates the mainstream media, it works to create an
economy that supports the backers of that ideology.

Why do you think voters in the USA continue to elect people who support
a capitalist, free-enterprise state? It's simple -- they know it's
better than the alternatives. It isn't perfect, just better.

Many of the so
called Christian denominations promote the idea that the rich have been
rewarded by God for their moral superiority.

And your point is . . . ?

The point is obvious.

Again, try to leave religion out of it. Religion is not logical, and
there is no way to settle an argument about its basis.

And I'd advise you to stop making such absolute statements. There are
successful large scale businesses in many countries with little or no
infrastructure.
Afghanistan? Somalia?

Foreign corporations extracting natural resources does not count.

Hey, the development of infrastructure has to start somewhere! What
industrial policy would you adopt if you were the president of an
underdeveloped country?

It would NOT be to let the foreign companies extract the wealth of
natural resources, dump subsidized products and impose austerity
measures in return for minimal compensation that mostly goes to a tiny
upper class. The neo-liberal policies have been a failure to improve
people's lives in developing countries, which is why the world is
turning against them (e.g. election results in South and Central America
during the last decade).

You mean like Chile?

The US did NOT support free trade until it had fully developed as an
industrial country.

Nonsense. The original 13 colonies largely supported free trade.

Yet, the propaganda of the rich decries government and
regulation as a great evil that holds corporations down.
Oh, really? Back it up. What propaganda? Don't just make the claim --
support it.

Open your eyes! Where have you been the last 40 years - in a hole in the
ground?
Working in businesses, learning how difficult it is to create successful
businesses, and how much vision, energy, leadership, guts and risk it
takes.

How many of those people who work hard actually become rich? The small
percentage should indicate how the playing field is tilted.

No, the small percentage indicates HOW DIFFICULT IT IS to become rich.
It takes hard work, persistence, drive, energy, imagination, ideas,
self-discipline and a healthy dose of luck.

And the willingness to take more than one contributes to the enterprise.

But you can't make your point without a system to explain a functional
way of defining "contribution", which neither you nor anyone else has
managed to devise -- except for markets.

Where have you been?

Working hard to make holders of capital rich.

Google "Grover Norquist", "Club for Growth", "American
Enterprise Institute", "Heritage Foundation", "Cato Institute" and the
website of almost every Republican politician.

S H E E S H ! ! !

Again, show me
one successful company that developed without the aid of government
services paid for by taxes.
Straw man. Nobody is claiming that corporations don't benefit from the
infrastructure of a well-developed economic nation.
They certainly do when they try to justify lower taxes for the
wealthiest members of society. Stop hiding under a rock.
You have not yet established that tax rates are fair, nor have you
defined how you propose to value the contribution of leaders,
entrepreneurs, inventors, creators, investors, and labourers. You
simply recite your mantra.
Of course progressive taxes are fair, since the rich benefit far more
financially from the organization of society than the poor do.

And of course, Java Man has failed to establish the opposite.

I'll start providing explanations when you do. You can start with
something more than your "fair share is what one's labor contributes to
added value".

I am not going to provide Java Man the education in added value. He
should be capable of doing his own research.

I've done my research. The market is what defines value. But you seem
to think there's an alternative. What is it?

You may want to do a little research on this question before you get to
far into it. Defining the "value" contributed by labour, capital, IP,
etc. is no easy feat. Why do you think the vast majority of developed
countries use a market to assign value? Are you aware of any countries
which use non-market systems to value these contributions, and that also
benefit from high quality of life for its citizens? If you do, please
list them.

Is Java Man not aware that markets can be distorted? For example, wages
for most are set by the market, while wages of top executives are set by
committees of other top executives who are well familiar with the
principle of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

Of course markets can be distorted! So can anything humans make. And
undoubtedly, your own illusory method of defining value can be
distorted, too -- but we won't know for sure until you tell us what it
is.

Show me one person whose vision and leadership is worth a billion
dollars in compensation.
First, I don't know of any corporate leader makes a billion dollars in
compensation. Maybe you do?

I know of people who started businesses, maintained control of most of
the shares, and ended up with billions in share value. But that happened
because they grew their companies into multi-billion dollar
corporations. The odds against that are so long that they're rare
anomalies requiring a measure of luck, a truckload of hard work, and a
lot of talent. But let me guess -- you object to that, too, right?
You forgot ruthlessness and exploitation.
You forgot everything positive.
[Yawn]. Are you rich and apologizing for yourself, or have you just let
yourself be indoctrinated by the propaganda?
Any bets on how long it will be before you accuse me of being a Nazi?
Godwin's Rule anyone?
What you did above also has a right wing equivalent. If I stooped to
your tactics, I'd ask if you are simply bitter because you were poor,
stupid and lazy. I don't see you that way, though. I see as an honest
guy with an altruistic streak, but who has been sucked in by propaganda
about the evils of corporations and the wealthy.
Dude, I have worked in enough shitty jobs in the past to see how people
are exploited.

Right. Capitalism is a system under which man exploits man. Communism
is just the opposite.

Name one true communist society. The former USSR and its sphere of
influence, China, Vietnam, Cuba, et al do NOT count, since they were all
based on the Leninist model of a party ruling elite replacing the former
aristocratic or corporatist elite. There were likely some prehistoric
societies that approached true communism, but by definition these are
not documented.

So what's your alternative to the current system in the USA? Name one.

I have opened my eyes and stopped believing all the
propaganda fed to me in the public schools, by the politicians and the
mainstream media commentators.

The examples of those who have more than enough harming others so they
can have even more are so numerous that any other conclusion would be
foolish.

Exploitation occurs everywhere, in every country, under every system. If
you think there's a system somewhere in which people AREN'T exploited,
please cite it.

Some are much less exploitative than others.

Show me a system where the rich do not try to further increase their
power and control.

If you mean ALL the rich, the USA is a society in which all the rich to
not try to increase their power and control.

There are notable exceptions, to be sure. The increasing numbers of
examples of CEOs (rather than founders) being compensated thousands of
times more than their employees, and receiving huge bonuses even when
their companies are losing money, is scandalous. But it's stereotyping
when you condemn someone for membership in a "class" rather than for
their actions as individuals.

Again, who has contributed a thousand or a million times more to society
than the average person? And would their contributions cease to exist
for a lesser monetary reward? No one in history has made extreme wealth
through invention or discovery - everyone of them has done it by gaming
the system to overvalue capital and undervalue labor.
How do you propose to measure the value of what someone has contributed
to society? Your argument is meaningless without a cogent explanation
of that.
I am sorry if you can not grasp this simple concept.
Feeble excuse for your inability to support your own argument. If you
say the current system of valuing people's contribution is wrong, surely
you must have a specific alternative? Why is it my responsibility to
support your argument?

Contributions to society can be made in the form of adding value to
natural resources or by providing necessary goods and services. Name
persons who have done the former on a significant scale SOLELY through
the fruits of their own labor, and NOT the labor of others. Yet, the
rewards most societies provide for producing these goods and services go
dis-proportionally to a small ownership class, and not to those (labor)
who make the provision of these goods and services a reality.

Name one person who has become rich without using the labor of others.
There's nothing wrong with becoming rich using the labour of others when
the others are paid appropriately for their contributions. And note
that I've never said or implied that NO ONE ever got rich without
exploiting others.

But how often are the others paid appropriately for their labor? Not
often, since the playing field is uneven. Labor starves in a short
amount of time without work, while the holders of capital can do nothing
the rest of their lives and live off the interest of relatively safe
investments such as government bonds.
You still haven't defined how to value the contributions of the various
players in the economy.
See above.

Now you have no need to wonder why the rich oppose having a social
safety net.

Now, how about answering the question you've been ducking since the
beginning? What alternative are you offering to the current system of
valuing people's contribution?

Each paid for their labor contribution to the whole.

And what does THAT mean?

Do you have problems with the concept of added value? I thought that a
businessperson such as you claim to be above would have a very good idea
how much the labor of each employee contributes to the success of the whole.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAA!

You've got a lot of homework to do before you even begin to understand
the problems of assigning value to the contribution of labour, capital,
innovation, infrastructure, etc. to the value of a product, service or
corporation.

If you ever studied algebra, you may remember the problem of having more
unknowns than equations? In such cases, there is no single "right
answer", but many possible solutions. Such is the case with assigning
value to the various factors of production.

But if you think you've got THE answer, press on -- a Nobel Prize in
economics awaits you.

See above on the issue of compensation of top executives, which is NOT
determined by market forces.

Ah, but it IS determined by market forces. Read about "superstar
economics". But it's an "imperfect market" (as economists define it).
I agree that senior executive compensation is scandalous in some cases,
and some members of the business press agree. Go back over the weekly
Economist for the past 10 years and you'll find many articles decrying
the outrageous examples of CEO compensation that is beyond the pale.
Oh, but maybe you'd think they're lying because they're "pundits on the
payroll of the rich".

In the end, the fact remains that implementing the policies promoted by
the right over the last three decades in the US has greatly increase the
wealth of a few at the expense of labor being less compensated then 3
decades ago, despite much higher productivity.

And what do you think is the source of most of that higher productivity?
(Hint: capital).

Java
.