Money

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:22 PM

How much money is enough?

Is it possible to have too much?

85 replies, 11614 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply How much money is enough? (Original post)
orson May 2014 OP
Butchie_T May 2014 #1
Juan Rico May 2014 #2
orson May 2014 #7
DocDocGoose May 2014 #12
orson May 2014 #13
DocDocGoose May 2014 #14
orson May 2014 #15
DocDocGoose May 2014 #17
orson May 2014 #21
DocDocGoose May 2014 #23
Gern May 2014 #47
orson May 2014 #48
Gern May 2014 #49
spacebar May 2014 #22
DocDocGoose May 2014 #25
spacebar May 2014 #27
DocDocGoose May 2014 #31
spacebar May 2014 #33
fools_gold May 2014 #35
spacebar May 2014 #42
Daidolis May 2014 #54
spacebar May 2014 #60
Daidolis May 2014 #53
oldenuff35 May 2014 #68
DocDocGoose May 2014 #69
oldenuff35 May 2014 #72
DocDocGoose May 2014 #75
oldenuff35 May 2014 #76
Epicurus May 2014 #3
Troll2 May 2014 #4
Let it go May 2014 #5
orson May 2014 #8
Trainman95630 May 2014 #34
orson Jun 2014 #82
Trainman95630 Jun 2014 #83
DocDocGoose Jun 2014 #84
Trainman95630 Jun 2014 #85
spacebar May 2014 #43
Let it go May 2014 #44
Hal May 2014 #45
Let it go May 2014 #50
Hal May 2014 #51
Let it go May 2014 #58
Hal May 2014 #61
Let it go May 2014 #62
Hal May 2014 #63
Daidolis May 2014 #55
Hal May 2014 #57
Gram Parsons May 2014 #64
Let it go May 2014 #65
island4diver May 2014 #6
fools_gold May 2014 #9
Myriel May 2014 #10
orson May 2014 #11
MountainDew Jun 2014 #80
Silent But Deadly May 2014 #20
akaConcernedCanuk May 2014 #16
liberalguy May 2014 #18
orson May 2014 #24
Epicurus May 2014 #26
Clown From Kenya May 2014 #41
Reveen May 2014 #19
tireman2.0 May 2014 #28
Reveen May 2014 #30
BBB May 2014 #29
Burrowing Owl May 2014 #32
Jack Burton May 2014 #36
Chuck Schick May 2014 #37
Jack Burton May 2014 #38
Chuck Schick May 2014 #39
Jack Burton May 2014 #40
Another_Dude May 2014 #67
PTTP May 2014 #46
oldenuff35 May 2014 #73
PTTP May 2014 #74
The Center Holds May 2014 #77
PTTP May 2014 #78
The Center Holds May 2014 #79
nolens volens May 2014 #52
wisbadger May 2014 #56
birdseyeview May 2014 #59
tanner May 2014 #66
vulturefood May 2014 #70
vulturefood May 2014 #71
MercATC Jun 2014 #81

Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:25 PM

1. You will be the first person I inform, once I get to the enough place.

Meanwhile, I am still collecting all I can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 04:47 PM

2. That rather depends on who's answering the question doesn't it?

I have acquaintances who I know for a fact are perfectly happy to live on public assistance for the rest of their lives (which doesn't say much for their character). I work moderately hard to achieve a somewhat higher than average standard of living, and that's enough for me. Others are driven to achieve wealth.

YMMV.

As for having too much, as long as the money has been acquired honestly I don't have the slightest problem with it, no matter the amount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juan Rico (Reply #2)

Sat May 17, 2014, 07:40 PM

7. Define honestly

If you inherit 20 billion is that honestly acquired? Suppose you get your 20 billion by exploiting workers who have no other option than to accept a sub-standard wage or go hungry? Or if your 20 billion come from poisoning the air and water? I worked hard all my life and always earned enough. I don't begrudge high earners, if, as you say, they come by it honestly, but that word is like fresh paint. It can give a glossy appearance to a very shoddy article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #7)

Mon May 19, 2014, 08:27 AM

12. I'm not going to touch the definition of honest,

But I do have a question. If I do manage to "honestly" amass $20 billion, who on earth could possibly have an "honest" claim to my money when I die if not my children? How could inheriting a fortune from a parent be anything but "honest"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #12)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:06 AM

13. How have they earned it?

A Democracy that wants to remain such can't really afford a hereditary elite based on extreme wealth. It isn't the money itself but the power seeking that attends it. If one's feet have never been allowed to touch the ground, it's easy to believe that being carried is your natural right, and others exist to serve your pleasure. This notion is central to Republican ideology, and is, or was, the biggest difference between the 2 parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #13)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:27 AM

14. You haven't answered the question.

If my children can't honestly claim it, who can?

And it's not so much that they haven't earned the money, it's that I have. I have earned the right to shower my children with whatever advantage I can possibly procure for them. Of course, my children will be taught that wealth is a responsibility and a stewardship. It is accumulated by hard work and service to others, and it is a blessing to be used for the benefit of others.

They will also be taught that success is not a zero-sum game. They will be taught to never apologize for their successes and to celebrate the success of others. They will be taught never to covet that which has been obtained by others, nor see others' gain as their loss.

At a minimum, you should recognize your point of view for what it truly is; jealousy. You resent the fact that others have opportunities that you don't and wish to see those opportunities taken away. But if you would truly have all wealth to be earned "honestly," you must realize that even if the heirs of a billionaire have no "honest" claim to that wealth, you most certainly do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #14)

Mon May 19, 2014, 12:24 PM

15. Horse manure

"I" stake no claim for myself. Money has never meant that much to me and I don't care how rich an individual is, up to the point that accumulated wealth becomes a detriment to the common good. Read the Preamble. the part that talks about "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Nothing in there about the creation of a hereditary elite with wealth beyond the most fantastic dreams of avarice and the kind of power that no individual is fit to wield. Society, which nurtures the environment in which all men may flourish, has a definite claim on that inheritance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #15)

Mon May 19, 2014, 12:52 PM

17. If you assert that society has a claim on that inheritance,

and that vast wealth is a threat to that society, then there is no truly "honest" way to amass such wealth. I guess if that is your assertion, then it is at least consistent with the idea that inheritance is not an "honest" method to acquire wealth. If you believe that there is a maximum net worth to which a man can "honestly" rise, then it follows that a man could obviously pass on to his heirs no more than that amount without doing so "dishonestly."

I, however, believe that no such limit exists. A multi-billionaire can be every bit as honest and forthright as any paycheck-to-paycheck worker struggling to survive, just the same as that worker can be just as dishonest and manipulative as any hedge fund CFO. If you believe that wealth is the source of inequality and evil, then it is obvious that the solution is the confiscation of wealth. I refuse to accept that premise.

Also, I fail to see how claiming another's inheritance for society is any different than claiming that inheritance for oneself. Do you not make up a small portion of that society to which the confiscated inheritance will inevitably be distributed? And if that wealth is taken from someone to be distributed to society, how can it be said that those to whom it has been distributed have acquired it "honestly"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #17)

Mon May 19, 2014, 06:44 PM

21. Do you believe society has a right to tax those who benefit

from its amenities? Taxes sustain civilization. Civilization creates the matrix for capitalism. Those who benefit the most should contribute accordingly, otherwise they're mere parasites. Why should a few individuals have the right to own everything? And if all wealth is concentrated in a very few hands, what stake do the vast mass of individuals at the bottom have in maintaining society. My question to you is do you believe in Democracy and what price are you willing to pay to sustain it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #21)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:42 PM

23. I think it's funny that you want to take money from the rich to give to the poor,

and yet they are they parasites. Surely you must see that that eponym works both ways.

I'm all for taxes, I'm all for contributing to a society in which people can succeed, I'm all for giving back. I'm not for penalizing success, I'm not for vilifying the successful, I'm not for claiming others' success as my own.

All wealth will never be concentrated the way you describe, because wealth is not finite. More wealth can always be made by those willing to work for it. And those who are wealthy don't have a right to own everything, but they sure as shootin' have a right to own what they've worked for.

Do I believe in democracy? As much as anyone you'll ever meet. But I don't think the question is so much "what am I willing to pay for it?" but rather "what do you think everyone else should have to pay for it?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #21)

Wed May 21, 2014, 12:04 PM

47. Your own words

"Those who benefit the most should contribute accordingly"

Tax monies levied against high earners in our society constitute a large portion of funding for programs for the poor, and those high earners subsequently receive no benefits from the programs they pay tax dollars to support.

Since poor people benefit the most from these programs, accordingly, by the logic you state above, they should be contributing the most to those same programs, otherwise they are "parasites".

You said it; not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gern (Reply #47)

Wed May 21, 2014, 12:17 PM

48. No doubt Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein

and the Koch brothers are gratified by your stirring defense of The Oligarchy. What do you get out of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #48)

Wed May 21, 2014, 12:31 PM

49. I don't get anything out of it

Hank Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein, the Koch Brothers, and whatever various and sundry oligarchical boogeymen that haunt the dreams of happy little socialists everywhere have absolutely nothing to do with the words you used to define how you think people should share a greater obligation to pay for the benefits they receive from society.

As I said, they are your words, not mine.

I don't "get" anything out of it. I don't wish to. I hold my convictions based on what I think is fair and just--not based on how I might personally benefit from something.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #17)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:14 PM

22. There's a very easy solution

for alleviating your fear that society may claim your wealth: Leave society. Formally separate yourself from the group.

If you look at animals that live mostly solitary lives, that's exactly how they achieve what you're asking. They don't cooperate with other members of their species over territory or food resources and they mostly go through life alone. That's how they keep all the resources they collect and territory they claim to themselves. They have no ties and have entered no alliances with other members of their species.

That's really what you're asking but what you want is to ask that within the context of being part of a social group. But that's like a gopher refusing to sound the danger alert for the other members of his group because he considers it an unethical claim to his energy. Or a lion that refuses to share some of its kill with the rest of the pride. Are you willing to agree that lions have a more developed sense of responsibility to the group than you do? Because that is what you are saying when no one in your group has any claim to any of your resources.

If you want to keep all the resources you amass with no responsibilities to a society, leave the society. It's very simple. If you want to stay, you must realize that there is going to be a distribution of energy within a social group. That's why they are a social group. Because there is a survival advantage to being in a group. When one member is weak or vulnerable, the other members can be counted on to pick up the slack. If the society can't count on you for anything or have any claim to any of your energy, what is the point of the social group? What is the point of the alliance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spacebar (Reply #22)

Mon May 19, 2014, 10:00 PM

25. You say that like those who are successful DON'T contribute to society.

I think you and I have extremely different perspectives on how wealth is achieved. A successful business is successful because it provides a good or a service to society that the society needs.

I'm going to be a doctor. I expect that I will become very wealthy. I will do so by providing essential services that will benefit the lives of thousands of people, and with any luck, even millions through my research focus. Can it really be said that my success will be anything but a benefit to society? Can it really be said that i have not fulfilled my duty to my fellow men?

The successful are a benefit to society because their success is reached in providing service to the society. But for some reason it is always they who have some extra, double duty to contribute even more to the society that they have been serving all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #25)

Mon May 19, 2014, 10:36 PM

27. And that would be fine

But often the successful don't extend that same acknowledgement of responsibility toward society to either the fairer redistribution of wealth or advocacy of a livable wage for all occupations. It's one thing to work in an occupation you love to live comfortably but if you are trying to use it to amass a fortune for some fairy tale palatial palace I think you are moving into poor social economics and resource management. I mean, does anyone really need 100 million or a billion dollars to sustain them and their family comfortably for the rest of their lives? I think not.

So if what we are dealing with is a concentration of large wealth in the hands of a few members of a society, no matter what they did to acquire it, with no limits to how much they can amass while there are still other members of the society the wealthy belong to who are living in squaller or low wage pay check to pay check, what is the point of anything the successful claim they do? There is still a massive inequality of wealth and resources and life quality existing. So obviously, whatever the successful claim they do for society is not enough.

And if they are going to concede that giving back to society to help their conditions in any way is good, why not go to the next step and take a cap on wealth so others in the society can benefit?

You have to wonder at someone who keeps more than they really need to live comfortably while their fellow members of society suffer if they really care about their welfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spacebar (Reply #27)

Tue May 20, 2014, 08:43 AM

31. If all this is true, why not carry it to its inevitably end?

If a man who lives comfortably cares not for his neighbor in poverty, and by so doing shirks his responsibility to his society, why not take every dollar he makes beyond his neighbor's salary to be distributed equally?

I must ask then, what has the neighbor done vis-a-vis his responsibility to society? The very principle of wealth redistribution implies equal outcome for unequal effort. It implies that some have a greater obligation to society than others, because not only must they contribute to society to make their living, but they must further donate their excess without thought of reciprocation.

I was asked previously if I believed in Democracy, now I must ask if this is really what was meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #31)

Tue May 20, 2014, 09:22 AM

33. The "inevitable end" is not to take more

than is needed for survival and comfort.

No, some people don't have a greater obligation. Some people have greater success, greater luck, greater talent at acquiring resources and greater ease at collecting resources than others. And if they are members of a group, if they are just an extension of the group, a hand of the group reaching out into the world and bringing back wealth, then any extra wealth that they don't require to be moderately comfortable should be shared with those members of the group who are currently having less success, less luck, less talent, etc. It doesn't mean that if someone is at one level of skill at one moment that it goes forever..Different members of a society will be at different levels of success at different times..and if you were to find yourself at a low level of success at any time, other, more successful members would step in and assist you. What keeps everyone stuck at different levels is not helping them.

To visualize this you have to get off the "but it's my resources" refrain. It's not about the individual. It's about the life quality of the group. We're not keeping score. It's about doing what comes naturally to you to the best of the effort you're comfortable with and pooling all the excess resource we don't need individually to those in need. It's truly about, yes, feeding yourself first but then giving whatever excess resources you happened to gain out of the effort for yourself, to those in need. It's not like you're exerting extra effort for others. It's just the extra resources that you may acquire with minimal to no effort exerted beyond for yourself. It's only what comes easy to you. For instance, once a billionaire reaches a certain level, a million dollars may come easy for them. He or she doesn't necessarily need the million dollars. It's just what comes natural and with little effort to the billionaire having reached a certain level of resource efficacy.

Last example, remember in Monopoly, when you were winning but you wanted to keep playing so you would throw a few hundred dollars to your opponent who was almost out of money? Or you would forgive their debts if they landed on your Boardwalk with two hotels? It wasn't being fair to yourself. Your opponents didn't work for or deserve it. But you wanted to keep playing. And that's kind of how societies work. We want to keep playing so we share. If we don't, it's game over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #31)

Tue May 20, 2014, 05:38 PM

35. The peasants will always whine

Always have throughout history.

This has been an interesting conversation, but it points out, once again, how the peasants are never happy and want the noble's lands and estates for their own. You correctly pointed it out above, it is envy.

This is not meant to be uncivil, but a statement of opinion. Some with a much different ideology may be offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fools_gold (Reply #35)

Tue May 20, 2014, 11:01 PM

42. Right

The peasants in France and Russia were envious of those monarchies. I guess that explains the America Revolution too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spacebar (Reply #22)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:22 PM

54. Leave society

Really? How do you take this huge leap from freedom to create and accumulate wealth and have a stake in it's distribution to being discarded from the society that stands to benefit from it. There are great and disguisting individuals in every economic class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daidolis (Reply #54)

Wed May 21, 2014, 03:46 PM

60. I'm talking about people

who fundamentally think society has no claim whatsoever on anything they have come to believe is theirs. People who are unwilling, and believe it is wrong, to share resources. It's not a mere distribution issue with them. You phrased it like it was but to them any redistribution of wealth is, at its core, wrong.

I was merely suggesting leaving society as the easiest method for them to get the world that they want rather than forcing their ideas of resource management on others. You want to keep what you create, forage or acquire by yourself? Then cut relations with the society you claim is always after your stuff. Simple. Then you won't have to deal with all the constant threats on your wealth. You don't need a social group for that.

I, for one, don't want to live that way. I want to live in a society where the life quality of its members is the responsibility of the whole group and resources are pooled to assure everyone is, at the very least, comfortable and not struggling alone. Which brings up a great question:

If some members of a society are left struggling alone for their own survival, what is the purpose of being part of a group? You could struggle for your survival just the same as any solitary animal. If that's what you're doing while part of a social group, what is the group for?

Obviously, social groups evolved because there is a survival advantage for an individual to be a part of a social group. If I can't get medical care while part of a social group (or society) because I can't "afford" it and I can't get medical care because I'm not part of a social group that can provide it, what is the difference? What difference does a society make to a person that dies because they can't afford medical treatment and person that dies because they are not part of a society? There is none!

So if you're someone who doesn't want to help people because it would be "unfair" to cut in on your wealth, let's not pretend you're a good member of society who advocates laissez-faire because you really care about people. You don't. You're in it for yourself. And yea, you can just as easily be in it for yourself, by yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #17)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:14 PM

53. Well said, Doc

Honest accumulation of wealth and "how much is enough" are very subjective terms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #14)

Tue May 27, 2014, 10:05 PM

68. The answer to this is simple

You find every legal way to transfer your wealth to your children before you die so those who have never earned your wealth but feel entitled to it never get to have that choice.

What I do with my legally earned wealth while I'm alive is my choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #68)

Tue May 27, 2014, 11:14 PM

69. But isn't that the crux of orson's post?

To make illegal the transfer of wealth to an heir?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #69)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:07 AM

72. I believe he is talking about upon death

Put together a corp and pay your children over a longer term and pay some taxes or a huge tax bill if they get it in lump sum when I die.
The same for your grandchildren then pre pay colleges for their educations. Four to six years prepaid college at a big school is a chunk of cash and sets them up with good loan free education and degrees so they can have debt free success soon after graduation.
I bet the socialists hate that one. The taking responsibility for myself and my family thing.......
There are many ways that I can spend my money that is beyond the reach of the entitlement mentality socialists.
I do not care if I die broke but the socialists will not get my money that they did not earn. My family and others I choose have a right to what I've worked for. The what and the who and the how much is my choice.
I just make those choices sooner than others do.
Sorry socialists, you loose yet one more time.....
Take out loans from your children and put up your home and other property as collateral they can take it legally to pay off the loans whey I die. The loan is not taxable to me and I can take it out of the bank and spend it any way I wish.
Using my money to cover some of the basics in their lives when they are younger allows them to make more investment earlier that will pay off greatly whey they get older.

There are many things that can be done you just can not wait until you are on your death bed to do them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #72)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:37 AM

75. All well and good,

And all of this will be part of my estate planning, but isn't it all just a solution to an artificial problem. None of it would be necessary if people just realized that nobody has an honest claim on my fortune except me and those I designate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #75)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:56 AM

76. I absolutely agree

I tell my kids early in life that if they want security and wealth then they have to have that as a goal, plan for it sacrifice for it, and work for it. I also tell them that earning money is not nearly as hard as keeping your money. We all pay taxes, I'm talking about after tax money.
If you do not plan so that you can keep what your have earned, others will reach right in and take it away every time.

All of the long hours of hard work, sacrifice, planning and success, is what the liberals now define as white privilege. When they tell me now to check my privilege, I take a moment to appreciate my accomplishments and then engage them in conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 05:06 PM

3. Around 10M after taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 05:06 PM

4. $100,000,000

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 05:12 PM

5. Just imagine if Steve Jobs decided he had enough $ after $5 million. Or Elon Musk.

We better hope our genius types want ever increasing sums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #5)

Sat May 17, 2014, 07:47 PM

8. Or Bill Gates?

Jobs probably would have worked for a lot less, but I doubt anyone ever suggested it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #8)

Tue May 20, 2014, 11:22 AM

34. Or the doctor who can operate on your child and save his life

 

better hope he doesn't think he's got enough money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trainman95630 (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:32 AM

82. How does greed make him a better doctor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:23 AM

83. I'm not positing that greed makes him a better doctor

 

I'm saying that if a doctor has his income capped he will work up until he hits the cap on income. Or if he subjected to shaming language " how much money is enough?", he will limit his output of work - and that hurts anyone who needs his services.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trainman95630 (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:39 AM

84. Or...

If his income will be capped, why would he invest 2 decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the skills necessary to become a pediatric surgeon in the first place?

If you want good surgeons, you have to make it worthwhile to become a good surgeon.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm totally on your side on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DocDocGoose (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:45 AM

85. Oh sorry, misread you

 

n/t
All the income limiters don't want to touch how you get around this issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #5)

Tue May 20, 2014, 11:19 PM

43. Great things would still get done

regardless of a person's individual wealth. I'm sure nobody involved in the moon landings could have funded even a fraction of the project themselves and yet it got done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spacebar (Reply #43)

Wed May 21, 2014, 12:51 AM

44. The space program is a nice gee whiz sort of thing.

But I will never hold it in my hand and communicate with it. Nor will I ever buy a flight on it.

Moreover it takes a lot of money to produce enough product at a price that we can afford.

Nope we need people who think big enough to create economies of scale. That takes a lot of money, certainly more than $5 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #44)

Wed May 21, 2014, 03:13 AM

45. Oh for heaven's sake. It was government money that funded the development of the entire

high-tech industry.

Speaking of NASA specifically:

Lockney cited several technologies that can be directly linked engineering work done for the Apollo missions.

Software designed to manage a complex series of systems onboard the capsules is an ancestor to the software that today is used in retail credit card swipe devices, he said....And those technologies are just a drop in the bucket to importance of the development of the integrated circuit, and the emergence of Silicon Valley, which were very closely linked to the Apollo program.

The development of that integrated circuit, the forbearer to the microchip, basically is a miniaturized electronic circuit that did away with the manual assembly of separate transistors and capacitors. Revolutionizing electronics, integrated circuits are used in nearly all electronic equipment today.

While Robert Noyce, co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and then Intel Corp. is credited with co-founding the microchip, Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments demonstrated the first working integrated circuit that was built for the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA.

NASA, according to Lockney, set the parameters of what it needed out of the technology and then Kilby designed it. Kilby later won the Nobel Prize in Physics for for creating the technology.

"The co-investment between defense and civilian space was very real and hugely important," said Hubbard.

"With Apollo, they needed to cut down on weight and power consumption. Mass into space equals money," he said. "It has been and continues to be about $10,000 a pound to get to lower Earth orbit. They certainly don't want computers that take up basketball courts. They want something very powerful and very light that doesn't take massive power. That was one of the driving requirements that led to the development of the integrated circuit, where you put all the components on a chip rather than having a board stuffed with individual transistors and other circuit components."

He added that the microchip took the high-tech industry to a place of mass production and economies of scale. "There was a major shift in electronics and computing and at least half credit goes to Apollo," said Hubbard. "Without it, you wouldn't have a laptop. You'd still have things like the Univac."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135690/NASA_s_Apollo_technology_has_changed_history?taxonomyId=11&pageNumber=2




In an article entitled, “Steve Jobs: Free Market Capitalist,” recently posted on Calwatchdog.com, a libertarian-leaning website, Joseph Perkins, the author, made the claim that Jobs, unlike some entrepreneurs, received “no government help” as he helped build Apple into the multi-billion dollar company it is today...

Although Perkins might be technically correct in saying Apple did not depend on “government subsidies”–at least not directly–it is documented the company might have gone belly up in the 1980s if it wasn’t for the fact they created demand for their products by aggressively marketing them to taxpayer-subsidized K-12 public schools...

So as the evidence suggests, Perkins’ assertion that Apple received “no government help” during its transformation into a multi-billion dollar company is nonsense. Jobs did what many other “free market capitalists” in this country do to become filthy rich: they get the nanny state to buy most of their firm’s products.

Jobs’ behavior shouldn’t be of any surprise given he grew up in Silicon Valley, an urban settlement that developed around clusters of high tech industries built from the ground up thanks to billions of dollars of taxpayer money from the Department of Defense.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/10/steve-jobs-a-free-market-capitalist-who-got-rich-selling-computers-to-taxpayer-subsidized-k-12-public-schools/


Consider the Internet and the World Wide Web, energized by competition among behemoths such as Google and Facebook Inc. and countless garage-style startups such as Clarity and Avaaz. This frontier of market freedom was brought into existence by government pursuing a long-term vision that no company would have attempted. People at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had the imagination to support a consortium of universities and research firms to build a network of computers able to exchange information, and undertook the sustained effort required to make it happen.

What about Google? The genius and inspiration of the company's founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, played a big role in making it happen. So did funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, which let the two computer scientists develop the algorithm that so transformed Web search and propelled the company ahead. Forward-thinking leaders at the foundation offered funding in precisely this area because they thought it would pave the way to a world of new technologies.

Even Apple, normally viewed as the singular creation of the lone genius of Steve Jobs, owes much to government. Mazzucato points out that Apple received crucial finance in its early years from the U.S. government's small-business investment program. Every one of the most important technologies in Apple's smart products, including the iPhone and iPad, were developed elsewhere and largely thanks to state funding.

The picture is similar throughout the economy. Of the roughly 100 most important innovations from 1971 to 2006, as identified by R&D Magazine, almost 90 percent depended heavily on federal research support, according to Mazzucato. And whatever big pharmaceutical companies might say about the risks they take and amounts they spend to develop new drugs, most of the really innovative discoveries the past few decades have come from publicly funded laboratories.

The point isn't that Jobs wasn't a genius, or that the energy and creativity of the private sector aren't necessary. It's that governments have had a huge and widely unappreciated influence on our economic well-being. They can often achieve things the private sector cannot, creating new technologies and entirely new markets.

It's a point that John Maynard Keynes made long ago: "The important thing for Government," he observed, "is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all."

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-06-20/opinion/mc-apple-iphone-buchanan-web-20130620_1_iphone-steve-jobs-apple-inc


Thank the government for your I-phone:

http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2013/10/24/t-iphone-government-funding-technology-research-apple-google.cnnmoney/

A Brief History of the U.S. Federal Government and Innovation (Part I): From Independence to World War I (1787 – 1917)

The role of “sparking” innovation, begun in the armories, was to be next enhanced by a new invention — the first to harness electricity — the electric telegraph.

In 1832 the young American artist Samuel F. B. Morse, along with his partners Leonard Gale and Alfred Vail, was one of several inventors around the world trying to develop electric telegraphy. He convinced the U.S. Congress that it was in the interest of this nation that this technology be perfected, and Congress allotted $30,000 (a great sum of money in those days) to build a demonstration line between Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Maryland. Many of the technological innovations that would be incorporated into the ultimately vast national telegraph grid were developed on that initial government project — including something as basic as using telegraph poles and suspended wires rather than burying wires underground. Various other government funding, culminating in the Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860, led to the spread and improvement of telegraphy.


http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/Jun/history.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hal (Reply #45)

Wed May 21, 2014, 12:50 PM

50. Government gets it to a point then it stops.

It does not invest in design, mass production or marketing. That is what you need capital for. Would you really want the government trying to decide on hit or miss risks? Look at its investment in the solar firms. $$$$ down the drain.

Better to let individuals who have skin in the game take the risk and reward. Put that in the governments hands and they land up building weapons no one wants and bridges to nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #50)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:09 PM

51. It stops so private capital can reap the benefit from publicly-funded (socialist) research and

development. The "big capital" is needed for design and advertising? Really? Design and marketing are *easy*. And so is mass production once basic development is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hal (Reply #51)

Wed May 21, 2014, 02:46 PM

58. Yeah look at that successful healthcare.gov website. :)

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

And all those satisfied vets using the VA!

Obama just killed any chance of single payer. I used to be an advocate but after seeing how they manage the VA I say hell no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #58)

Thu May 22, 2014, 12:03 AM

61. Not sure what healthcare.gov has to do with government funding basic research for the high tech

industry, research which was later "privatized" by corporations like Apple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hal (Reply #61)

Thu May 22, 2014, 02:50 AM

62. Government is incompetent.

They can do basic research that are extras but I prefer not to expect much from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #62)

Thu May 22, 2014, 03:24 AM

63. Basic research isn't an "extra". It's fundamental. You can expect or not expect what you

like, but I don't think you know much about the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hal (Reply #45)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:27 PM

55. Government money

It's funny that you mention that it was government money that funded the entire space program. And where does Government acquire "Its" money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daidolis (Reply #55)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:43 PM

57. Government gets 'its' money by 1) creating it de nova; 2) taxing various entities; 3) borrowing.

None of which detracts from the fact that the high-tech industry was built on government-funded R&D, not private funding from 'entrepreneurs'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #5)

Sun May 25, 2014, 11:15 PM

64. The great entrepreneurs like Jobs aren't in it for the money....

Jobs lived a rather spartan lifestyle. He was in it to change the world. And he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gram Parsons (Reply #64)

Mon May 26, 2014, 01:47 AM

65. But you can't accumulate enough to fund great projects if everyone has a max of $5 million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 05:16 PM

6. depends

on where you are at and your situation. What is enough for someone living in a trailer or cottage in James Town, Wyoming, wouldn't cover a month's rent in Manhattan.
There was a joke in the 1980s that said "Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat May 17, 2014, 10:26 PM

9. How many years is a long enough life?

You will probably get a lot of opinions on that similar question also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:19 PM

10. I'm willing to experiment

Keep giving me money and I'll tell you when it is too much.

Seriously, I think it would depend on the person and what they were trying to accomplish with the money. I have seen studies that show that the increase in happiness from having more money either flattens or increases at a much lower rate once you get a little above middle class incomes.

For me, having more money would just be a means to increase consumption and be more charitable. For others, it is a stock of capital to use in making their ideas real. If Walt Disney hadn't accumulated money, he couldn't have built theme parks. If Steve Jobs hadn't accumulated money, he couldn't have funded Pixar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myriel (Reply #10)

Sun May 18, 2014, 04:32 PM

11. For the Kochs and the Waltons

there seems to be no such thing as enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 11:33 PM

80. Or your buddy Soros. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myriel (Reply #10)

Mon May 19, 2014, 04:40 PM

20. Now that was a funny response! NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 12:43 PM

16. After reading the whole thread, something came to mind.



A recent inheritance allowed to to buy my own home outright, after suffering through what I call our "Welfare merry go round" as I got recycled from job to welfare and back again.

My inheritance was not enough to make me live in some grand style, just enough to make me secure for the rest of my life if managed properly.

I would say that a cap on inheritance should be somewhere between 5 - 10 million, yeah, definitely not billions.

The remainder would NOT go into a general government budget board, but rather administrated for the sole purpose to benefit the poor, homeless, ill (especially the neglected war veterans) , victims of natural disasters and so on . .

If this is done, families like the BFEE and the Kocks will cease to exist.

I think that would be a good thing.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 02:05 PM

18. (My remaining life expectancy * $60,000) + $4000 for a funeral.

 

All problems are math problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #18)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:59 PM

24. I'm going to skip the funeral

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #24)

Mon May 19, 2014, 10:13 PM

26. I'd rather be dead than miss mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalguy (Reply #18)

Tue May 20, 2014, 08:44 PM

41. Where are you getting a funeral for $4000????

 

You can barely get cremated for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 03:38 PM

19. For some people

 

there is never enough.

I Made $570K Last Year, But I Don’t Feel Rich (In Fact, I Feel Worried)

http://thebillfold.com/2013/05/i-made-570k-last-year-but-i-dont-feel-rich-in-fact-i-feel-worried/

Personally I don't care what others have. I never sit around dreaming of their millions. All I want out of life is to be comfortable which means being able to afford all my needs and maybe some wants, be able to one day retire without thinking about if I have enough to live out the rest of my life. I ask for nothing more.

Being super wealthy has it's own troubles. I don't want any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reveen (Reply #19)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:16 PM

28. You made 570K last year and you are worried...

that's "rich"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tireman2.0 (Reply #28)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:33 PM

30. I wish

 

No, not me, it was a link to someone that did make that but felt it wasn't enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon May 19, 2014, 11:23 PM

29. I'll let you know when I get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Tue May 20, 2014, 08:48 AM

32. You can never have too much

because at some point, money becomes about power, and one can never have too much power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:06 PM

36. I am always astonished at the arrogance

of people who presume to determine how much someone else should have. If the founding fathers had been liberals we would have the Bill of Needs and not the Bill of Rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #36)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:13 PM

37. Nothing or double Jack

Then you give me a ride to the airport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuck Schick (Reply #37)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:39 PM

38. I have no idea what you are talking about. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #38)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:49 PM

39. It was a reference to some lame movie... never mind Jack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chuck Schick (Reply #39)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:53 PM

40. Guess I didn't see that movie

or just don't remember the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #38)

Mon May 26, 2014, 07:58 PM

67. Movie

It's from an 80s Stallone movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 05:19 AM

46. Money is not real

It is a fictional construct created to be a barrier to an egalitarian community by those who wish to suppress others in order to further their own wanton desires.

Any money is too much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTTP (Reply #46)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:18 AM

73. Good for you and those thoughts

Now show us all how you can life life without money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #73)

Thu May 29, 2014, 11:28 AM

74. A very unreasonable request from one individual.

We all must work together to create a society which would be structured in such a way as to not need money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTTP (Reply #74)

Fri May 30, 2014, 10:09 AM

77. Well, there's your problem.

"We must all work together" to create something that 99.99% of us don't want.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success. More like tilting at windmills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Center Holds (Reply #77)

Fri May 30, 2014, 10:58 AM

78. you suck at math.

"We must all work together" to create something that 99.99% of us don't want.

Well, since you are just one person and there are 7.2 billion people on Earth, the total percentage that you are allowed to speak for is 0.000000013889%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PTTP (Reply #78)

Fri May 30, 2014, 01:47 PM

79. You suck at persuasion.

Have a good day, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:10 PM

52. Enough for what?

To live out your life? To buy anything you want?

I live a very moderate lifestyle, or at least I think I do, and if I was being honest 250k would allow me to retire now before I reach 60 and relax until I'm dead....

500k would allow me to travel around the nation a lot more and enjoy the accommodations a bit more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 01:41 PM

56. In this country we are allowed to amass as much fortune as we chose

if a person does well, society has no right to that money, it's one of the freedoms we enjoy. Anyone who feels that somehow others are "entitled" to someone else's fortune are really missing the boat on the principals that made this country great.

I've always wondered about people who feel wealth is bad and it keeps the poor own. Do you believe that there is a limited supply of money? In other words if someone make a billion dollars, does that mean other people lost that billion dollars?

You do realize that the federal reserve puts as much money into the supply chain as necessary. If I somehow earned a trillion dollars and had it sitting in my back yard, the fed would make sure there were still enough dollars out there to go around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed May 21, 2014, 03:22 PM

59. For me personally? Maybe

 

I haven't hit that yet. In regards to others, I can't speak for them. That is not for me to determine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon May 26, 2014, 05:56 PM

66. Never enough

I will never have enough money. I have never been rich and work hard for each and every dollar that I have. I always have bills and things keep popping up, so I can never get ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Wed May 28, 2014, 01:02 PM

70. For me, probably not

After I fully funded my favorite charities my goals would simply expand. I'd end up looking like a Green version of the Kochs. (For all the sturm und drang over George Soros, he does not reach as far as people think.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vulturefood (Reply #70)

Wed May 28, 2014, 01:03 PM

71. Still looking for that first $31M

1 for me. 30 for my favorite charity. If you've got the 30, I'll tell you where to send it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:06 AM

81. ALL of it. That's too much.

Until you approach that line, you're fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Money