They are really not. Read one post above. The Forbes list is not accurate. Gaddafi would have been #1, according to the mainstream media.

I don't understand why you feel the need to act that way. I'm not offending you.

I'm saying they're not perfect, and that is why a system like capitalism could never work. Thank you for making my point.

We must expand to Alpha/Centauri and hope there is a sentient humanoid species that is capable of assembling mini touch screen computers on an assembely line and that they also lack the social cohesion to Unionize.

Exactly. Government is the real problem. And using government to "stop" the rich just makes it worse.

OK, so Gaddaffi inherited his wealth from... the vanderbilts? I mean it doesn't matter if the Forbes list is perfectly "accurate" or not, it's GOOD ENOUGH for this purpose. it's not a wild guess. The heirs of the vanderbilts are not all third world dictators sitting on forty xillion krugerrands.

It is absolutely not the same, because these people did not make money by accident. Their families have made that money. They are raised from birth to understand what is expected of them. They are legends. They go to Yale, Harvard, Oxford, and etc. They do not blow their money. They do not touch their money. The money is and will remain invested. They spend the interests. No one that has the capacity to accumulate that sort of wealth is going to keep their money in an account, without generating interests. If you have 100 million dollars invested, which is like change for these families, you can have about 2-3 million dollars a month in spending money. They already own properties. They spend money on vacations, drugs and fun. They do not go through their family fortune.

capitalism doesn't require perfect people.

I'm sure there are better theoretical systems out there, I'm still waiting to hear how you plan on politically allocating resources and doing so in a MORE SUSTAINABLE way than a market.

So you think letting them do what they will is a better idea?

No, you're describing the behavior of the intelligent and motivated. This is not the default. Most of then blow it. And if they don't, their grandchildren do. People only hold onto money for many generations with the help if government.

Sam Walton didn't make his fortune by putting cash in a bank and waiting for compound interest.

Rich people can, with careful work, maintain wealth, but they're not going to continue to grow the wealth at the rate of the original tycoon. Sam Walton's heirs are not going to grow their fortunes at anything CLOSE to Sam's lifetime rate. They're not going to turn a billion into a trillion.

In the meantime, other people ARE creating wealth at those Sam Walton rates. The Walton heirs are being surpassed. They're might maintain wealth, but they're not maintaining their position in the pecking order.

The economy is not a zero sum game.

Yes, I know, that is what I'm saying. I'm telling you that, if a guy can get that kind of money being a lousy dictator in a smallish economy for a couple of decades, how much money would you say the British Royal Family has? Or maybe the Rothschild banking family? Or the Rockefeller family?

That is what I'm saying. The Forbes list is BS. The real wealthy families use Bill Gates money to build summer castles.

You're not listening. It doesn't take motivation. That is how it is done. It is how it has been done for generations in these families.

Well, random politics poster who joined today and started furiously posting about how capitalism is bad and I'm very sure has never posted on 2+2 at any point before today, I assure you - it can be necessary to define terms just to make sure everyone is on the same base.

Since you're new here and have never had an account with 2+2 before, you might not realize it but sometimes arguments arise over semantics.

There's always a drunk or a womaniser or a gambler and poof no more family fortune.

That is not true. Basic math will tell you that, the more money you have invested, the bigger the interest you will accumulate, and the more rapidly your wealth will grow. It's called a geometric progression.

OK, I suspected "Rothschild" was only a few posts away.



It's hilarious how you wring your hands worring about "capitalism" and your lead-off examples are those evil capitalist industrialist... wait, no, they're freaking government figureheads.

Hmm.

I posted here years ago on the poker section. I stopped not long after. I didn't remember my original name or password, so I created a new one. I'm just debating. If you don't like the topic, feel free to ignore it. Thank you.

No, it isn't. At least, I have no idea what you mean by capitalism then. Which is why I asked you how you're defining it. Define it?

OK. You never answered it.

How so?

How so? (And what does this mean? lol)

Example?

Example?

Example?

Not these fortunes.

yeah that's not how math works.

in fact it's the opposite, as you increase the amount of money you seek to invest it becomes much, much harder to achieve those sorts of growth rates. You have to look extremely hard to find places to invest. It's not like you just go buy four xillion shares of intel at $8 and wait for it to go to $400, then sell those and buy 800 xillion shares of google at $8 and wait for that to go to $400. that kind of money CAN'T FIT all in one place. you have to actually work at it.

The one's you imagine? Yeah they probably will be there forever.

Every one of your posts was the same. You always resort to personal attacks and try to ridicule me. It seems you don't have an argument.

The Rothschild banking family is a very well known family. I don't know what talking about them has to do with being a tin foil hatter. They have more than a hundred species named after them. Several castles, which they still own. It is well recorded in history that they were the first billionaire family, in the 19th century. I think it's fair to ask where that money went. In today's money, it would be Trillions of dollars.

+1

A better idea than empowering the government to help them get richer and make the problem worse? Yes.

Government regulation of business, at least in a government as corrupt as the US federal, just helps business at the expense of the common man. It's all a big game of making legislation that helps the corporations look to the people's like it hurts the corporations. Whenever our government gets more involved, the corporations win and we lose. Keeping the Feds out is the best way to defend ourselves.

Just look at Obamacare. This isn't a social plan that helps the people. It's welfare for the insurance corporations, plain and simple. It forces people to give their money to an overpriced and wildly inefficient insurance system. The insurance companies were the entire reason that our health care system is so awful, and our solution is to give them a bunch of money. Lovely!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Capitalist+System

I did.

By giving tax cuts to the wealthy and maintaining the rates for the rest.
That's just 1 example.

I thought it was clear enough, but ok.
They hire congressmen, senators and such to work for them, causing the people to go unrepresented.

Monsanto dumping chemicals behind their plant and causing cancer on the population that lived in the area. Again, just one example.


The same one as above, or you can consider the cigarette industry, or thousands of other examples like these.


Cigarette companies used to say their cigarette was good for you. Again, just one example. There are plenty more out there.

Anything else?