Can everyone be rich?

[afterzir]

    I have a question; is it possible for everyone to be rich?  This came about when I was thinking about Africa and how everyone is pretty much poor and then I wondered if the opposite is possible.  I know that laissez faire capitalism is extraordinarily good, but is it up to the task?  (I want the best scenario to be assumed, i.e. that everyone is as smart, skilled, & motivated as Bill Gates)

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Not sure if this is helpful for you, but I have tried to arrange your post into a logical argumentative form that might help you see what you've written, if only a little more clearly.

 

 

Premise 1: Everyone is pretty much poor in Africa.

Premise 2:  Bill Gates is not poor as a result of laissez-faire capitalism.

Conclusion: If laissez-faire capitalism were mandated on the continent of Africa, everyone in Africa might become as smart, skilled, motivated and as rich as Bill Gates.

 

Is this helpful?

[thelizardking52]

Your question, to get a better answer, shouldn't be based off the premise of all Africans are poor.  Africa has many nations with different economic/ government systems. It's also wrong because there are Africans that are rich too.  Warlords, drugsmugglers, poachers, businessmen, government tycoons,dictators, etc.  They probably have more money than most rich people you know, but again, I dont know who you know so….. 

 

Rich is a subjective adjective and not limited to finance. Let's say it is limited to finance though,since your question is regarding wealth. Then, as your requisite to the conversation be best case scenario, I say it is possible for us to all be rich financially in a relative way but not in an objective way. For us to all be rich objectively and in a best case scenario then there will have to be a truly free market for ideas and entreupenrship to dominate and flourish the economic environment. There will always be winners and losers in this environment and we cannot have any complete equilibrium meaning there must be a discrepancy from one individual to another. That's the nature of a truly free market. So in best case scenario, objectively, we cannot all be rich.

 

Relatively speaking though, in the best case scenario, the poor would still be better off than people not in the best case scenario.  The example here being a capitalist society vs. a communist society. Relatvely speaking the poor capitalist ought to be better off than the well to do communist ( unless the well to do communist is the dictator or direct family of the dictator). 

Not sure if this is helpful for you, but I have tried to arrange your post into a logical argumentative form that might help you see what you've written, if only a little more clearly.

 

 

Premise 1: Everyone is pretty much poor in Africa.

Premise 2:  Bill Gates is not poor as a result of laissez-faire capitalism.

Conclusion: If laissez-faire capitalism were mandated on the continent of Africa, everyone in Africa might become as smart, skilled, motivated and as rich as Bill Gates.

 

Is this helpful?

I found it helpful…. only a bit too late, after i tried to answer the question 

[labmath2]

How economy works simple version.

Imagine there is 100 dollars(total resources) and its divided among 10 people(total population). At zero value they all have 10 dollars and any trade for service or good is a promise to provide service or goods of same value to someone in that society(particularly to the person who now holds the money they spent). If anyone is rich (owed a lot of service or good), then one person or some people must be poor (owing people a lot of service or good). Imagine one person manages to acquire 30 dollars out of the 100, then 9 people must collectively own 70. Simply put, if everyone is rich, then no one is rich and if some people are rich, then some people must be poor. This does not necessarily mean they will have no resources.

[Alan C.]

If you're asking if it's possible for everyone to have all of their wants satisfied then no.

 

However, it's possible for everyone to enjoy luxuries which minimize the amount of labor required to live.

 

labmath2, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth, and resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely.

[Sal9000]

labmath2, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth

 

 

The amount of wealth is not fixed, but the sum of all transactions has to be 0.

 

resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely.

 

 

Economy is about scarcity. The ecosystem has a carrying capacity. Once it gets exceeded, it collapses.

[Agalloch]

I earn less than "minimum wage" and am below the "poverty line" - my point here being that I'm considered one of the poorer people in my country.

 

I'll probably live until I'm around 70, surviving not only simple common causes of death from the 19th century but even most forms of cancer that meant much shorter life spans only 30 years ago; and I'll suffer all medical treatment much less than my forefathers who suffered more in basic dental work than I probably ever will in my medical life. I live in a fixed abode that provides me with warmth and shelter all year round, and has indoor amenities that couldn't be hoped for a centutry and a half ago. I can have almost any type of food I desire all year round. I have access to transport which can take me further than most people could go in their lives, without war, only a few centuries ago or in places that currently have totalitarian governments, and it can take me there in a single day and without causing me blisters, dehydration, suffering or to even break a sweat. My children will likely survive infancy, and be able to study in any area of thought they desire. I can learn more in a single day online than most people could from a lifetime of Victorian newspapers, and have access to more books than they could imagine. The list could go on forever. We are, so rich.

The amount of wealth is not fixed, but the sum of all transactions has to be 0.

 

 

Economy is about scarcity. The ecosystem has a carrying capacity. Once it gets exceeded, it collapses.

 

What is zero from the sum of transactions? You seem to conflate the unnamed variable with wealth, but wealth is not a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade increases wealth for both parties.

 

If you're refering to the amount of money in the economy then, that is irrelevant. Money isn't a closed system, it is not traded for money, but also for other goods and services. The value on the front of money may not increase, but the wealth value it represents constantly increases due to the positive sum game of voluntary trade.

[Sal9000]

What is zero from the sum of transactions? You seem to conflate the unnamed variable with wealth, but wealth is not a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade increases wealth for both parties.

 

 

Let's have a look at a transaction:Agalloch (1 apple - 0$) - Sal9000 (0 apple - 1$)- - - -Agalloch (0 apple - 1$) - Sal9000 (1 apple - 0$)_______Zero sum. Let's assume I eat half of this apple and sell it to my husbandSal9000 (0,5 apple - 0$) - Hal9000 (0 apple - 0,5$)- - - -

Sal9000 (0 apple - 0,5$) - Hal9000 (0,5 apple - 0,5$)_______Another Zero sum transaction. 

[Agalloch]

Let's have a look at a transaction:Agalloch (1 apple - 0$) - Sal9000 (0 apple - 1$)- - - -Agalloch (0 apple - 1$) - Sal9000 (1 apple - 0$)_______Zero sum. Let's assume I eat half of this apple and sell it to my husbandSal9000 (0,5 apple - 0$) - Hal9000 (0 apple - 0,5$)- - - -

Sal9000 (0 apple - 0,5$) - Hal9000 (0,5 apple - 0,5$)_______Another Zero sum transaction.

 

 

It doesn't take much effort to read the very next line in my post...

 

If you're refering to the amount of money in the economy then, that is irrelevant. Money isn't a closed system, it is not traded for money, but also for other goods and services. The value on the front of money may not increase, but the wealth value it represents constantly increases due to the positive sum game of voluntary trade.

If you want to understand how wealth isn't zero-sum, a better example would be.

Agalloch (1 apple, which he doesn't like - 0£, 0 useful objects) - Sal9000 (0 apples, which he loves and is starving - 1£ that he can't eat, 0 useful objects)

Agalloch (0 apples, which he didn't like anyway - 1£ which he can use to buy something he does like, 1 useful object) - Sal9000 (1 apple he can now eat - 0£, 1 useful object)

 

Of course, wealth isn't really counted in "objects" either, it's not a numeric value. Plus, there are an infinite other variables related to the valuation of trade that I didn't include. No zero-sum game though.

[Sal9000]

You are right, but your perception does not matter when it comes to adding up numbers. It plays a role in psychology, but not in economics. If that wasn't the case you could go to a bank and say "I feel rich bc I have these apples I value so much, give me a loan plz". Economics looks at trades and transaction and not the reasons why they happen.

[Agalloch]

You are right, but your perception does not matter when it comes to adding up numbers. It plays a role in psychology, but not in economics. If that wasn't the case you could go to a bank and say "I feel rich bc I have these apples I value so much, give me a loan plz". Economics looks at trades and transaction and not the reasons why they happen.

I'm blown away, that's such a meaningless comment. Not only is it wrong, but nothing I responded to restricted me to the realm of "economics as studied" in the first place. Specifically we were talking about whether wealth is a zero-sum game. If economics can't answer that, then we aren't discussing what you call economics, so what? We definitely weren't discussing the viability of getting a loan. Yet another level of absurdity and inaccuracy in your statement is that your comments about getting a loan are wrong. If it took money in a bank to get a loan, 1) people wouldn't get loadns and 2) they wouldn't need loans.

[Sal9000]

If economics can't answer that, then we aren't discussing what you call economics, so what?

 

 

Economics answers that. For doing that, it looks at money and transactions. Once again, your perceptions of wealth don't matter for economics. It's like saying "I am pretty strong in physics". Without using the terminology used in physics this statement is nonsensical.

 

If it took money in a bank to get a loan, 1) people wouldn't get loadns and 2) they wouldn't need loans.

 

 

To get a loan at non-predatory conditions you need securities. These are measured in money, or the expectance to create money in the future. Your ideas on how much you value your securities simply don't matter.

[LovePrevails]

what do you mean by rich?

 

is it possible for everyone to have a good quality of life in terms of material goods? probably 

[TheMatrixHasMe]

    I have a question; is it possible for everyone to be rich?  This came about when I was thinking about Africa and how everyone is pretty much poor and then I wondered if the opposite is possible.  I know that laissez faire capitalism is extraordinarily good, but is it up to the task?  (I want the best scenario to be assumed, i.e. that everyone is as smart, skilled, & motivated as Bill Gates)

 

 

A few questions:

 

 

1) How do you define "rich"? (In my view, we are all rich beyond compare because we have philosophy, we have this forum, and we have this community)

 

 

 

2) Do you believe that all people in Africa are poor?  If so, how do you define poor?

 

 

 

3) Do you believe that all people in Africa are "black" or "dark skinned"?

 

 

 

3) Why do you believe that laissez-faire capitalism is extraordinarily good? 

 

 

 

4) What do you mean "best scenario?" What does that really mean?

 

 

 

5) If Bill Gates is an example of the "best scenario" then you must be aware of the fact that he throws millions and millions of dollars at people and organizations that are smashed, broken, and defend the horrific, self destructive internal narratives they create to protect their abusive, neglectful parents, and run their lives?  Is this what you mean by best scenario?

 

 

 

6)I know he is just an example, but if Bill Gates is so smart, skilled, and motivated, then why isn't he here on FDR trying to promote peaceful parenting, the pursuit of self-knowledge, and  philosophy?

[Livemike]

Compared to what?  I mean considering how people who earn minimum wage for 40 hours a week live compared to most people in history, they are rich.  And they work for only 40 hours!  Before capitalism that was considered being either sinfully slothful or so on the edge of starvation from underemployment.

[afterzir]

Not sure if this is helpful for you, but I have tried to arrange your post into a logical argumentative form that might help you see what you've written, if only a little more clearly.

 

 

Premise 1: Everyone is pretty much poor in Africa.

Premise 2:  Bill Gates is not poor as a result of laissez-faire capitalism.

Conclusion: If laissez-faire capitalism were mandated on the continent of Africa, everyone in Africa might become as smart, skilled, motivated and as rich as Bill Gates.

 

Is this helpful?

The African part is just background on how the idea popped into my head, it doesn't have anything to do with the question.  I would phrase it logically as a conditional: if everyone is incredible, then can everyone be wealthy?  Two things that I'm wondering about is prices (if everyone has money that is more and more valuable, would there be less reason to work) and investing (if investing is [narrowly] defined as having your money make money, then can everyone invest continuously).

Compared to what?  I mean considering how people who earn minimum wage for 40 hours a week live compared to most people in history, they are rich.  And they work for only 40 hours!  Before capitalism that was considered being either sinfully slothful or so on the edge of starvation from underemployment.

Good point

A few questions:

 

 

1) How do you define "rich"? (In my view, we are all rich beyond compare because we have philosophy, we have this forum, and we have this community)

 

 

 

2) Do you believe that all people in Africa are poor?  If so, how do you define poor?

 

 

 

3) Do you believe that all people in Africa are "black" or "dark skinned"?

 

 

 

3) Why do you believe that laissez-faire capitalism is extraordinarily good? 

 

 

 

4) What do you mean "best scenario?" What does that really mean?

 

 

 

5) If Bill Gates is an example of the "best scenario" then you must be aware of the fact that he throws millions and millions of dollars at people and organizations that are smashed, broken, and defend the horrific, self destructive internal narratives they create to protect their abusive, neglectful parents, and run their lives?  Is this what you mean by best scenario?

 

 

 

6)I know he is just an example, but if Bill Gates is so smart, skilled, and motivated, then why isn't he here on FDR trying to promote peaceful parenting, the pursuit of self-knowledge, and  philosophy

 

How economy works simple version.

Imagine there is 100 dollars(total resources) and its divided among 10 people(total population). At zero value they all have 10 dollars and any trade for service or good is a promise to provide service or goods of same value to someone in that society(particularly to the person who now holds the money they spent). If anyone is rich (owed a lot of service or good), then one person or some people must be poor (owing people a lot of service or good). Imagine one person manages to acquire 30 dollars out of the 100, then 9 people must collectively own 70. Simply put, if everyone is rich, then no one is rich and if some people are rich, then some people must be poor. This does not necessarily mean they will have no resources.

Viewing things as resources and money (where money is a claim on those resources) is helpful

[labmath2]

If you're asking if it's possible for everyone to have all of their wants satisfied then no.

 

However, it's possible for everyone to enjoy luxuries which minimize the amount of labor required to live.

 

labmath2, there isn't a fixed amount of wealth, and resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely.

Technically, yes, the resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely, but realistically the resources are fixed. Means of production is limited so the owners of means of production have infinite wealth capacity, but there can only be so much means of production. The most fundamental of these is land. There is only so much fertile land, so even if we can produce infinite amount of crops, there is location and time constraint on that production. The most wealthy are those who control those limited means of production and everyone else has to pander to their needs. The sun is the only "unlimited" resource that cannot be privately owned.

[afterzir]

A few questions:

 

 

1) How do you define "rich"? (In my view, we are all rich beyond compare because we have philosophy, we have this forum, and we have this community)

 

 

 

2) Do you believe that all people in Africa are poor?  If so, how do you define poor?

 

 

 

3) Do you believe that all people in Africa are "black" or "dark skinned"?

 

 

 

3) Why do you believe that laissez-faire capitalism is extraordinarily good? 

 

 

 

4) What do you mean "best scenario?" What does that really mean?

 

 

 

5) If Bill Gates is an example of the "best scenario" then you must be aware of the fact that he throws millions and millions of dollars at people and organizations that are smashed, broken, and defend the horrific, self destructive internal narratives they create to protect their abusive, neglectful parents, and run their lives?  Is this what you mean by best scenario?

 

 

 

6)I know he is just an example, but if Bill Gates is so smart, skilled, and motivated, then why isn't he here on FDR trying to promote peaceful parenting, the pursuit of self-knowledge, and  philosophy?

1) I guess I would define rich as being able to easily satisfy your desires/goals/needs

2) People in Africa (on aggregate) can not easily satisfy goals because of the lack of capital there

3) Although I don't see the relevance, not all, but most

4) It allows people to pursue their dreams (and no central planners taking over the task of thinking for others)

5) I thought that would make the problem simpler to think about

6) I'm aware that he's not great in all regards, I was just using him as an example

7) He still sees politics as a tool to make the world better (but he is wrong)

[Brentb]

Technically, yes, the resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely, but realistically the resources are fixed. Means of production is limited so the owners of means of production have infinite wealth capacity, but there can only be so much means of production. The most fundamental of these is land. There is only so much fertile land, so even if we can produce infinite amount of crops, there is location and time constraint on that production. The most wealthy are those who control those limited means of production and everyone else has to pander to their needs. The sun is the only "unlimited" resource that cannot be privately owned.

 

Only the thing that is the fundamental source of all energy and life on the planet is "unlimited". So your theory holds because you consider the Sun as an outlier?

 

Besides that, resources are not fixed. Sure the quantity of a particular material in the universe may be fixed, but any material does not become a resource unless or until it is valued. Values are subjective and can change dramatically over time and location.

[Alan C.]

Technically, yes, the resources can be reconstituted almost infinitely, but realistically the resources are fixed. Means of production is limited so the owners of means of production have infinite wealth capacity, but there can only be so much means of production. The most fundamental of these is land. There is only so much fertile land, so even if we can produce infinite amount of crops, there is location and time constraint on that production. The most wealthy are those who control those limited means of production and everyone else has to pander to their needs. The sun is the only "unlimited" resource that cannot be privately owned.

 

In your original post, you said, "Imagine there is 100 dollars(total resources) and its divided among 10 people(total population)."

 

What do you mean by resources? Do you mean fistfuls of dirt and piles of rocks? What is a dollar and how do you know that the 'fixed' amount of resources in your narrative are worth 100 dollars?

 

These types of exercises really don't mean anything.

 

In a free-market, money is a direct result and reflection of production, and production is the process of transforming resources (ie. 'stuff' found in nature) into useable things which provide comfort and reduce labor. It doesn't always follow that having more 'stuff' makes one richer.

 

At work, one of the projects I worked on was condensing many racks of servers down to one rack. What used to take six racks of servers to accomplish is now accomplished in one rack of servers. We have less 'stuff' but the company is wealthier. Even though the new servers are orders of magnitude more powerful than the old servers, they cost a small fraction.

 

Think of smart phones and computers and how much 'stuff' they replace. People have less 'stuff' but are wealthier as a result of having smart phones and computers.

 

Smart phones and computers are examples of resource reconstitution that conserve resources while making people wealthier.

 

There is no shortage of arable land on the planet to feed everyone.

[MMX2010]

There is no shortage of arable land on the planet to feed everyone.

 

I liked all of your post, but wanted to piggy-back on this last point.

 

If there ever were a world-wide catastrophic shortage of arable land and/or drinkable water, a corresponding percentage of the human population would die.  By dying this perception of a "catastrophic shortage" would be altered to "plenty of land and water for everyone". 

 

In other words, I didn't like the usage of "carrying capacity", because it only appears when too many people exist.  It does not appear when fewer than that unknown number of people exists. 

[Tree Frog]

There is no way to eliminate the poor. However being poor is all relative. Take the third worlds poor and compare that to the US poor. Big difference. With capitalism in the US we have been able to make being poor less of a hardship and more of an inconvenience.

 

Basically what I'm trying to say is a capitalist society cannot eliminate the poor and make everyone rich. If all the lowest people in my country make 1 Million USD a year and the highest make 1 Billion USD a year then the people that make 1 Million USD a year are still poor compared to the top earners. But in this crazy scenario being poor basically means as opposed to buying a 500 Million Dollar house, you have to cut back to the 2.2 Million Dollar house. So its all relative... 

 

Hope this helps, take it with a grain of salt.

[tiepolo]

There are plenty of rich Africans. There are 9,500 millionaries living in Lagos, Nigeria, alone! http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/nigerian-millionaires-hit-23000-next-four-years-study/

 

In answer to your question, no, not everyone can be rich, because the term 'rich' implies relatively high wealth compared to an average. If every man on earth was seven foot tall then no seven-footer could sensibly be described as 'that tall bloke'. 'Rich' also implies access to things that are exclusive and/or rare.

[aFireInside]

I would say by definition no.

If being rich means having more than the average person.

Then if everyone is rich it means everyone has more than the average person ? 

Which is impossible because then the average standard of living would go up.... And to be rich you would have to make more than that 

 

 

Also in Africa the majority of people are poor but there are rich people who control the mines and resources. 

 

    I have a question; is it possible for everyone to be rich?  This came about when I was thinking about Africa and how everyone is pretty much poor and then I wondered if the opposite is possible.  I know that laissez faire capitalism is extraordinarily good, but is it up to the task?  (I want the best scenario to be assumed, i.e. that everyone is as smart, skilled, & motivated as Bill Gates)

[Abolitionist]

Can everyone be the 1%? Obv no.Has wealth increased over time due to technology? Obv yes.Does everyone have to be equal to have all needs and most wants met? No. When technology allows it, and govt doesn't get in the way.I mean would you want equality + poverty? or inequality + high standard of living, its pretty obvious how little economic equality means.

[MFK]

This topic remembered me when I was (uselessly, for sure) arguing with muslims about the "fifth pillar" of their religion - which is, namely: the "Zakat" (sort of "religious" income tax for which to obey you have to give away a fraction of your annual salary to poor). It is funny because you only have to switch the premise: "Divine commandment" - by: "State decree", and you get exactly the same thing. There's no structural or operational differences between both: the ashamed spirit of their abused (as childs) violent leaders - forces them to pray the divine oppressor and to submit "symbolically" to the very abuse. But the reason why I was telling all that is because their principal argument wasn't, unexpectedly, the fact that it was plainly a God's order - they were putting upfront the fact that many "people" (you never hear the metaphysically grounded concept of individual in their filthy mouths) are suffering right now (the so-called "poor" - an anti-concept for a truly uncontrollable-hysterical emotion) - and that it is the duty of the "honest man" to help them. Now, I'm certainly not denying that there will always be place to improvement in a productive economy, or, to size the controverse in a better way: I'm not critizicing this position because I'm against "solidatiry", "charity", "sharing and gift" economies - no, I'm struggling against the fact, like everyone here, that these objectively opportunistic behaviours arn't only suggested of developed as an economical tools by their proponents - but imposed by the top, intrinsically involuntary. And it's at that point that it become interesting: muslims would systematically refuse or undermine this position, and not only because of their religion: in fact, it seems to be a semantical issue. Let me explain.

 

As it has been well-exposed in that thread - to be considered "rich" is only a subjective value, a perceptual attribute or reality, who must be replaced in its specific context. There's no intrinsic "richness" (no more than its counter-part, an intrinsic "poorness"). But many individuals will automatically tend to reduce "being rich" to the wealth's dimension. As we can imagine, the same perceptual flaw (flawed concepts because they allow context-dropping and are limited to only one of their potential characteristic) was probably happening historically in other/many forms: for example, the "power" of the Witch-Doctor would be attributed (fundamentalized) to his "connection" with the hereafter; the power of the monarch would be psychologically associated with his name, narrative, etc. This is a very old bias and it's still going on nowadays: we hysterically "identify" the prestige of some individual and/or status through the dominant trend actually bugging our mind. In this so-called "neo-capitalist" era we're reducing every individual to its wealth. This is nothing more than fashion.

 

Back to our story: when you accept illogical, unprovable, super-natural premises in your life - you'll be prone to this perceptual fallacy also known and studied in the literature under he name: "fundamental attribution bias". It's like if the purely abstract concept of "richness" became an object, a substance - "something" existing, constituting the 'individual, not just defining him in a specific context. Richness can always come aposteriori, meaning: after that some objective wealth have been produced - and it won't sustain if the "rich" doesn't continue to improve is skills and "means of production", as Marx himself woult put it !

 

To conclude on this - to ask: "Does everybody can be rich" is an intrinsically flawed question, pure meaningless babbling except if we treat it like I did in that post - by analysing it, linking the abstract void with the existing concretes making it viable.

 

Now, compare with: "Does anyone can produce new wealth" ? In other words: Does anyone can perform the concrete actions needed in order to create wealth and then, perceptually, metaphorically - be considered "rich" ? - YES.

[jpahmad]

It's possible for everyone to be happy

[Alan C.]

It's possible for everyone to be wealthy. What is wealth and where does it come from? Wealth is an improvement in one's living conditions. Wealth creation is a process of recursive transformation of resources through production and underconsumption. Examples of wealth include smart phones, computers, electronics, appliances, robotics, mechanization, and medical devices.

 

So, the question is, why isn't everyone wealthy? Two reasons immediately come to mind: 1) parasites who live at the expense of others via expropriation, and 2) some people consume more than they produce.

[MFK]

Well resumed, Alan Chapman - but I should add a third point to your enumeration: 3) There's is parasites at the bottom but also at the top: what do we do with the "rich kids" (who're BTW going really mad on snapchat these days), the psychopath narcissists, the introverted nerds who keep (and/or retire) jealously and hysterically their capital from the market, etc. ? This list isn't exhaustive: we should also consider the various lobbyists, the corporations, the so-called infectious monopolies ("cancer stage of capitalism"). And last not least: what do we do with our beloved "anarcho-primitivists", neo-luddits and co. - those who "produce" only enough to satisfy their vital needs, or retroactively, by ashaming and destructing the modern means of production - force the production to regress to some faniitaisist "communist" initial stage ? Their outcome isn't completely non-valuable (perhaps more "invaluable") - but who's interested in returning to the Stone age ?

 

What individuals need the most is an objective, meaningful purpose. Check your fucking premises ! Scan and sound rigorously your infancy. To go back live in the wood cannot be in any way whatsoever a sane, intelligible, productive purpose: it is caused by mental impotence, a lot of fear and guilt linked to an initial distorted reality perception.

 

EDIT:

But, hey guys ? Isn't "being rich" only means: to have a vagina ? It is for this very reason that no richman will conserve their wealth on the long run. The actual exemplary situation to understand that joke of mine is this young blond hunter who got a contract with l'Oréal only because of the antiquated (naive) rules of seduction: put women on pedestals. The fact is that she's born that way, with these very features: it's perhaps what the OP was looking for when he start his quest for the "richness-in-itself" - the apriori, intrinsic but reversely obsolescent richness of the Glory Hole !

 

(Remember this quote from Alien 3 - nation's wisdom: "Treat a queen like a whore and a whore like a queen")

[mthenke]

EDIT:But, hey guys ? Isn't "being rich" only means: to have a vagina ? It is for this very reason that no richman will conserve their wealth on the long run. The actual exemplary situation to understand that joke of mine is this young blond hunter who got a contract with l'Oréal only because of the antiquated (naive) rules of seduction: put women on pedestals. The fact is that she's born that way, with these very features: it's perhaps what the OP was looking for when he start his quest for the "richness-in-itself" - the apriori, intrinsic but reversely obsolescent richness of the Glory Hole !(Remember this quote from Alien 3 - nation's wisdom: "Treat a queen like a whore and a whore like a queen")

 

First rule of generalizations: don't make generalizations.

 

The evidence of rampant promiscuity and lack of principles is everywhere, yes, but this kind of cynicism disgusts me. What's the point of having this discussion if we won't address possible solutions? Self-defeating cynicism-bordering-on-nihilism is just as destructive as the bad behavior everyone here's raging against.

 

This all stinks of the same problem afflicting the Men's Issues community---too many people, it seems, just want to bitch and moan and not try and fix anything.

[Alan C.]

I'm as equally opposed to welfare parasites as I am to corporate subsidies. Somebody is being expropriated to furnish that money.

 

People who want to live a simple, ascetic lifestyle (eg. rural folk) are no threat to anyone, but primitivists and neo-Luddites who deliberately undermine and destroy capital formation are.

[jacbot]

    I have a question; is it possible for everyone to be rich?  This came about when I was thinking about Africa and how everyone is pretty much poor and then I wondered if the opposite is possible.  I know that laissez faire capitalism is extraordinarily good, but is it up to the task?  (I want the best scenario to be assumed, i.e. that everyone is as smart, skilled, & motivated as Bill Gates)

 

Sure, no problem

If the vast majority of adults gets to load up on math, and engineering , physics, chemistry (pick your poisen).

It will be easy peasy. no sweat!

it seems, just want to bitch and moan and not try and fix anything.

 

No kidding!...,

[NotDarkYet]

A king from the year 350 is incomparably poor relative to an average american today.

 

All of us today are incomparably poor relative to people from the year 2300.

 

 

What creates this wealth other than the market?