Booms and busts in the market place are indeed created by the financial system through cycles of credit expansion and contraction. In the long run however the direction of the market is determined by the intrisic value of the underlying businesses. Intrinsic value is determined by how assets are alocated and how capital is used to produce goods and services.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the Ethical Limit to Personal Wealth?
- Thread starter Martin Gale
- Start date
Booms and busts in the market place are indeed created by the financial system through cycles of credit expansion and contraction. In the long run however the direction of the market is determined by the intrisic value of the underlying businesses. Intrinsic value is determined by how assets are alocated and how capital is used to produce goods and services.
IMHO one of the greatest assets of the wealthy is the middle class; however, wants it dissipates so does its protection.
For this reason it's in government's and wealthy people's interest to find the optimum level, to keep the middle class content, or the government will be eventually replaced and the wealth will be taken for redistribution.
For this reason it's in government's and wealthy people's interest to find the optimum level, to keep the middle class content, or the government will be eventually replaced and the wealth will be taken for redistribution.
Many individuals that feel life is unfair wish for the Marxism that actually ends up concentrating the wealth to a small number of individuals.
With no chance of the typical individual being able to achieve wealth nor a better life than what is given to him.
A society where all but a few are equally poor. That's fair?
And of course those that are in power are the only wealthy individuals and will not redistribute.
Rather ironic how it does not work.
With no chance of the typical individual being able to achieve wealth nor a better life than what is given to him.
A society where all but a few are equally poor. That's fair?
And of course those that are in power are the only wealthy individuals and will not redistribute.
Rather ironic how it does not work.
Quote from FerdinandAlx:
I'm trained to enter into voluntary agreements with others in an electronic market place. I take my own profits and I take my own losses.
And you will doubtless attempt to electronically profit from the Fed cut tomorrow which will further devalue the wages of those who attempt to work for a living, not even the welfare cases. I know I will. But I console myself with the thought that I have no choice if I want to preserve my capital.
All I'm saying is that the system is rigged.
Ditto!
You don't need to be a Marxist or a welfare recipient to realize that.
You don't need to be a Marxist or a welfare recipient to realize that.
Quote from K-Rock:
IMHO one of the greatest assets of the wealthy is the middle class; however, wants it dissipates so does its protection.
For this reason it's in government's and wealthy people's interest to find the optimum level, to keep the middle class content, or the government will be eventually replaced and the wealth will be taken for redistribution.
In essence, since wealthy people in reality control goverments it's in their interest to find the optimal limit or else.
Quote from K-Rock:
IMHO one of the greatest assets of the wealthy is the middle class; however, wants it dissipates so does its protection.
For this reason it's in government's and wealthy people's interest to find the optimum level, to keep the middle class content, or the government will be eventually replaced and the wealth will be taken for redistribution.
Quote from Martin Gale:
And you will doubtless attempt to electronically profit from the Fed cut tomorrow which will further devalue the wages of those who attempt to work for a living, not even the welfare cases. I know I will. But I console myself with the thought that I have no choice if I want to preserve my capital.
All I'm saying is that the system is rigged.
Is the system rigged? Yes it is. I realized this and it is why I became a speculator. I feel no shame in this and I got in it to get rich.
Money creation is a form of redistribution of wealth, on the whole no wealth is created. If it is done by anyone other then the Federal Reserve it is called counterfeiting. Wealth is created through production. If I look around in the room I'm in, the computer I see, my desk, my books, my office chair, they weren't produced by a printing press or by a bureaucrat in charge of redistribution. They were manufactured by someone and then sold to me by a retailer. What they did added value to their products, they're the ones who create wealth and it has nothing to do with redistribution in any way. What the Fed does adds nothing, if anything the Fed substracts value by debasing the currency.
In a healthy system actual production would be rewarded and in such a system there's no reason why any reward should be artificially limited.
You agree that the system is rigged and that the Fed debases the currency. Does this not imply that individuals who are less sophisticated than you need to be protected from the system? In fact, ultimately they need to be protected from you, since you would exploit the system to your advantage at their expense: If you become wealthy enough, you will use your wealth to influence elected officials who will pander to you because, again, the system is rigged that way. Again, I'm not talking about handouts, just limits.
Quote from FerdinandAlx:
Is the system rigged? Yes it is. I realized this and it is why I became a speculator. I feel no shame in this and I got in it to get rich.
Money creation is a form of redistribution of wealth, on the whole no wealth is created. If it is done by anyone other then the Federal Reserve it is called counterfeiting. Wealth is created through production. If I look around in the room I'm in, the computer I see, my desk, my books, my office chair, they weren't produced by a printing press or by a bureaucrat in charge of redistribution. They were manufactured by someone and then sold to me by a retailer. What they did added value to their products, they're the ones who create wealth and it has nothing to do with redistribution in any way. What the Fed does adds nothing, if anything the Fed substracts value by debasing the currency.
In a healthy system actual production would be rewarded and in such a system there's no reason why any reward should be artificially limited.
Quote from Martin Gale:
You agree that the system is rigged and that the Fed debases the currency. Does this not imply that individuals who are less sophisticated than you need to be protected from the system? In fact, ultimately they need to be protected from you, since you would exploit the system to your advantage at their expense: If you become wealthy enough, you will use your wealth to influence elected officials who will pander to you because, again, the system is rigged that way. Again, I'm not talking about handouts, just limits.
An ethical thing would be to attempt to fix what's wrong with the system. Though, having found a way to go with the system in a way I think is ethical, this isn't very high on my to do list.
Limiting wealth would be a useless attempt to patch it and harmful to people who create great wealth by actually producing something. Elected officials would still be influenced in the same way Hillary Clinton collects her campaign contributions from Chinese businessmen. If you want to tackle corruption what you need is more transperancy, something that the Fed could use as well. The funny thing is that a proposal by a congressman to broadcast the Fed meetings was shot down by President Clinton's administration on the grounds that doing so would 'upset' financial markets.
Good points. Democracy requires equal political access, equal access to the law, and equal access to information, none of which we have. But at least OJ was able to overcome his obstacles and get a fair trial.
Quote from FerdinandAlx:
An ethical thing would be to attempt to fix what's wrong with the system. Though, having found a way to go with the system in a way I think is ethical, this isn't very high on my to do list.
Limiting wealth would be a useless attempt to patch it and harmful to people who create great wealth by actually producing something. Elected officials would still be influenced in the same way Hillary Clinton collects her campaign contributions from Chinese businessmen. If you want to tackle corruption what you need is more transperancy, something that the Fed could use as well. The funny thing is that a proposal by a congressman to broadcast the Fed meetings was shot down by President Clinton's administration on the grounds that doing so would 'upset' financial markets.