Why do we view losing money as "bad" ????

Exactly. It wasn't that long ago in human history where almost 99% of the population was engaged in working within agriculture to meet basic requirements. Thankfully we've moved past this with automation, to the point that in most developed countries have <3% working in the sector and producing many times the amount.

This adjustment of the economy allows for labour to move to other areas, keeping productivity up and innovation flowing. Anyone who thinks we've reached the pinnacle of technology, innovation and products in the market are foolish.

 

Total Segue. but Guns, Germs and Steel is an incredible book on how societies have developed since our agrarian ways.

 

Absolutely - it was course reading back when I was doing my undergrad.

 

I don't know about you however I invest to make money. Pretty basic motivation. If I lose money that's bad for me.

What's the point of your thread?

 

No one is disputing that technology is far from reaching its pinnacle.
On the contrary, it is technology's relentless progress that is supplanting labour in virtually all categories.
Technology including and especially machine learning and artificial intelligence is supplanting labour in nearly all categories.

 

Sounds very socialist Left, and anti-rich folks, to me.

Greedy people aren't lauded.

I don't know any folks (unless they are conscious of their own greed) who like greedy folks. And greedy folks often come unstuck.

Folks don't begrudge the Warren Buffets, or Bill Gates, or Michael Jordans, etc for becoming unbelievably rich - they are seen as folks who have provided great benefit to the world and receive a lot of reward for their contributions.

And; many, many folks of this level of wealth are generous...they give back far more money to the less fortunate than we can ever earn, and they often give up their time.

In comparison; that makes me greedy - I give far less money and time than Bill Gates. I contribute way less.

The folks who simply "fell" into wealth are treated with more disdain of course; some Oil Sheik who happened to be born to another one who happened to be sitting on a patch of dirt with a load of oil under it, for example. Especially if they are presiding over a Country of many poor folks, while they themselves live in unbelievable wealth and comfort.

An unregulated market allows anyone who is breathing the chance to get to the top of the totem pole...it is up to them to get there; and no-one is stopping them from getting there. I prefer those systems.

I know loads, and loads, and loads of people who have come from a very meagre background and ended up with decent wealth.

Plus; there are many, many layers of wealth on the way down from the top of the pole; you only need to climb a small way up under our current system to live a very nice life...and we can all do it.

I can't remember many folks under Communism being able to do that - or other types of Economies where free markets don't exist.

Really poor third-world Countries possibly; these places are often run by terribly corrupt Gubbs and/or regimes, etc, so it's not the system which is at fault - it's the "humans" running it.

 

@Bayview , I don't consider anybody on PC 'obscenely wealthy' nor do I consider them 'greedy'. I see everybody here simply as trying to make a decent life for themselves. In the scheme of things, PC members are but a mere drop in the ocean. I applaud Gates, Oprah Winfrey and others who put their money to good use. Nowhere have I said I'm against wealth. Why is anybody who gives a damn about those at the bottom of the totem pole labelled a 'communist'?

The people I'm talking about are a elites who spend millions, even billions, setting up NGOs in third-world countries; think tanks;, lobby groups; so called 'human rights' organisations, all in an attempt to influence policy.

George Soros is an example. He is worth 24.2 billion (a billion is 1,000 x 1,000,000). He spends his money fomenting anarchy and attempting to destabilise economies. He funded Human Rights Watch to the tune of $100,000,000 and funds Amnesty International. In return, they do his bidding. Governments around the world have criticised HRW for its continued accusations of 'racism and Islamophobia' of anybody who criticises human rights' records of countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Only recently Russia has banned all George Soros groups, which were set up to destabilize the country. Soros is one of the most politically powerful individuals on earth. Since the mid-1980s he has helped reconfigure the political landscapes of several countries around the world—in some cases playing a key role in toppling regimes that had held the reins of government for years, even decades.

 

Nice of you to even take the time to respond to all that BK, everyone is expressing their own view points and all view points are valid. All good.

But this above is a put down - you actually have no idea whether she is anti -rich, it's a mind read. Also BK IS actually very wealthy and financially independent and in a position most people on this forum aspire to be at.

If you were my child Bayview, I would ask you to go to your room and not come out until you think of 3 very nice things you can say about BK. lol

 

Greedy baby boomer wylie

 

Hi @Xenia , Yes, I don't call owning a plethora of properties 'greedy'; I think it's smart. If I did think that, I'd be labelling myself as 'greedy' and I'm not. Do I love making money? Of course I do. That's only natural. It's interesting that expressing an opinion on social justice gets someone labelled as 'anti-rich folk'. Making money is part of life and part of being a responsible citizen. It's satisfying; it's fun; it's part of ensuring your future and that of your children.

 

Google some stats Wylie
you may find through research that the world is now a better place.

I did some research for a presentation I did a while ago and found that the statistics on crime rates, pollution, diseases etc are going down.
there are certainly mortalities through diseases now (different ones) but not as much as there used to be.
My paternal grandmother had 12 children - 5 survived, the rest "got sick and died"
Now we can have 1, 2 or 3 children - small numbers and expect a high survival rate mostly.
Certainly children do die (unfortunately and it's the most devastating thing ever), but we don't have 12 children any more because some of them are going to die - it is just not the norm any more. It used to be.

 

Completely agree with this. But capitalism requires the population to grow so that people can keep buying 'stuff'. I don't know the answer. But be careful, you'll be labelled as a communist!

 

This is one of Xenia's blanket statements that I can agree with, especially crime stats and diseases.

As for , pollution, well its much better in the West, not so of course in India, China etc.

 

The answer of course is in the middle, stretching from pro business low welfare states like Singapore to more pro social states such as in Scandanavia. Perfect free markets like true communism has never existed at a national level.

 

Hey hey. .please check in with me in 10 years or so. ..