The Wealth Machine

P

PoliTalker

Diversity Makes Greatness
Let's look at some basic logic.

Suppose an individual had the goal of becoming fabulously rich.

How would this be done?

Obviously, working for somebody else would not make that happen.

The individual would have to set up a 'Wealth Machine.'

That would usually mean building a system that collects some money from as many other individuals as possible.

It could be a little bit from a lot of people (Jeff Bezos.)

Or it could be a lot from selected individuals (The American Health Care System, where people have partial coverage and require expensive services.)

It would be detrimental to the function of The Wealth Machine to care about the concerns of the individuals affected by The Wealth Machine.

Individuals with partial coverage requiring expensive health care would then have to forfeit their life savings to The Wealth Machine.

Great for getting super-rich, not great for those affected.
 
PoliTalker said:
Let's look at some basic logic.

Suppose an individual had the goal of becoming fabulously rich.

How would this be done?

Obviously, working for somebody else would not make that happen.

The individual would have to set up a 'Wealth Machine.'

That would usually mean building a system that collects some money from as many other individuals as possible.

It could be a little bit from a lot of people (Jeff Bezos.)

Or it could be a lot from selected individuals (The American Health Care System, where people have partial coverage and require expensive services.)

It would be detrimental to the function of The Wealth Machine to care about the concerns of the individuals affected by The Wealth Machine.

Individuals with partial coverage requiring expensive health care would then have to forfeit their life savings to The Wealth Machine.

Great for getting super-rich, not great for those affected.
Click to expand...

Basic LOGIC? Yeah...........SUPPOSE, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD HAVE, WOULD USUALLY MEAN, COULD BE, WOULD BE............nuff said. Real objective logically based applicable scientific terms. :bigthink: Why is it........the left always attempts to spin SUBJECTIVE bullshit talking points into logically well reasoned articulate OBJECTIVE arguments? Reality: Leftists COULD NOT say shit if they had a mouth full.
 
While I agree with thread OP there are some rich whose luck or whatever is put to positive use. An example would be medical research or supporting causes that do good but are not always supported. But many do less good things as greed is a powerful motivator. Two histories that cover the topic below.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2751831-invisible-hands

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money


"The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."

Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
 
Hello midcan5,

midcan5 said:
While I agree with thread OP there are some rich whose luck or whatever is put to positive use. An example would be medical research or supporting causes that do good but are not always supported. But many do less good things as greed is a powerful motivator. Two histories that cover the topic below.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2751831-invisible-hands

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money


"The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."

Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
Click to expand...

I think the individuals who become fabulously rich as the result of coming up with some great new innovation which serves society very well, actually had the motivation to develop that product or idea for the purpose of serving society, not for the sole purpose becoming fabulously rich.

It is logical that individuals who begin with the goal of becoming fabulously rich, and then decide what the platform to achieve that goal is, are less likely to operate their wealth machine in an altruistic fashion.
 
PoliTalker said:
Let's look at some basic logic.

Suppose an individual had the goal of becoming fabulously rich.

How would this be done?

Obviously, working for somebody else would not make that happen.

The individual would have to set up a 'Wealth Machine.'

That would usually mean building a system that collects some money from as many other individuals as possible.

It could be a little bit from a lot of people (Jeff Bezos.)

Or it could be a lot from selected individuals (The American Health Care System, where people have partial coverage and require expensive services.)

It would be detrimental to the function of The Wealth Machine to care about the concerns of the individuals affected by The Wealth Machine.

Individuals with partial coverage requiring expensive health care would then have to forfeit their life savings to The Wealth Machine.

Great for getting super-rich, not great for those affected.
Click to expand...

This sure sounds like plutocracy to me.
 
The best way to "get rich" is to do it the way so many of the wealthiest .1% have done it...by being smart enough to have been born into a wealthy family.

Only the morbidly stupid make the mistake of being born to poor parents...and they deserve their poverty.

Being born into wealth; marrying into wealth; and stealing wealth from other people are the way to go.

Only suckers stick it out without wealth.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Let's look at some basic logic.

Suppose an individual had the goal of becoming fabulously rich.

How would this be done?

Obviously, working for somebody else would not make that happen.

The individual would have to set up a 'Wealth Machine.'

That would usually mean building a system that collects some money from as many other individuals as possible.

It could be a little bit from a lot of people (Jeff Bezos.)

Or it could be a lot from selected individuals (The American Health Care System, where people have partial coverage and require expensive services.)

It would be detrimental to the function of The Wealth Machine to care about the concerns of the individuals affected by The Wealth Machine.

Individuals with partial coverage requiring expensive health care would then have to forfeit their life savings to The Wealth Machine.

Great for getting super-rich, not great for those affected.
Click to expand...

FOR THE BIDENS , AND THE REST OF THE SLEAZOCRATS, IT'S "GO INTO POLITICS AND GET RICH"...IT'S BEEN SELL INFLUENCE TO OUR ENEMIES....ETC.

networth_fb.jpg
 
Hello Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa said:
The best way to "get rich" is to do it the way so many of the wealthiest .1% have none it...by being smart enough to have been born into a wealthy family.

Only the morbidly stupid make the mistake of being born to poor parents...and they deserve their poverty.

Being born into wealth; marrying into wealth; and stealing wealth from other people are the way to go.

Only suckers stick it out without wealth.
Click to expand...

Funny.

But of course in reality it is those who know how to enjoy life without great wealth who are the smartest. The purpose of wealth is ostensibly to be able to enjoy life. Once an individual has enough wealth to really do that, more wealth beyond that point is superfluous. It's nice, but not required for the purpose of realizing the original goal because that has already been achieved.

Ya gotta feel sorry for those who are so obsessed with achieving wealth that they lose sight of any specific purpose for doing so. Then a tremendous predicament is encountered in which there is no level of wealth which has been established as goal achievement. This sets into motion a life of trying for something which is never possible to attain. And shafting a lot of innocent people along the way.

Society could do far better without such individuals acting this way.
 
Individuals who are addicted to the acquisition of wealth above all other concerns are a social disease.

A society which has a lot of such afflicted individuals is a sick society.
 
The character of an individual may be assessed not according to what one owns, but rather what one does.

What does each individual contribute to society as a whole?

That is a worthy question to be asked.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The best way to "get rich" is to do it the way so many of the wealthiest .1% have done it...by being smart enough to have been born into a wealthy family.

Only the morbidly stupid make the mistake of being born to poor parents...and they deserve their poverty.

Being born into wealth; marrying into wealth; and stealing wealth from other people are the way to go.

Only suckers stick it out without wealth.
Click to expand...


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Trust Fund. That's the Way to Go!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Frank Apisa,



Funny.

But of course in reality it is those who know how to enjoy life without great wealth who are the smartest. The purpose of wealth is ostensibly to be able to enjoy life. Once an individual has enough wealth to really do that, more wealth beyond that point is superfluous. It's nice, but not required for the purpose of realizing the original goal because that has already been achieved.

Ya gotta feel sorry for those who are so obsessed with achieving wealth that they lose sight of any specific purpose for doing so. Then a tremendous predicament is encountered in which there is no level of wealth which has been established as goal achievement. This sets into motion a life of trying for something which is never possible to attain. And shafting a lot of innocent people along the way.

Society could do far better without such individuals acting this way.
Click to expand...

Amen. I have always been relatively poor...never chased money and never accidentally stumbled onto much of it.

But I consider myself one of the luckiest people on the planet. Life has been great...and the things I missed because I did not have big bucks...just don't seem very important. A car has always just been a vehicle...not a status symbol for me; a modest house works just as fine as a mansion; clothing for me is not a thing to show off status.

I know many people of means...and several of them seem always to be seeking "more." Not the Oliver kind of more...but the "keeping up with the Rockefellers" kind.

I actually feel sorry for some of them. They seem to think that happiness and contentment are always just a few hundred thousand dollars down the road.
 
PoliTalker said:
Let's look at some basic logic.

Suppose an individual had the goal of becoming fabulously rich.

How would this be done?

Obviously, working for somebody else would not make that happen.

The individual would have to set up a 'Wealth Machine.'

That would usually mean building a system that collects some money from as many other individuals as possible.

It could be a little bit from a lot of people (Jeff Bezos.)

Or it could be a lot from selected individuals (The American Health Care System, where people have partial coverage and require expensive services.)

It would be detrimental to the function of The Wealth Machine to care about the concerns of the individuals affected by The Wealth Machine.

Individuals with partial coverage requiring expensive health care would then have to forfeit their life savings to The Wealth Machine.

Great for getting super-rich, not great for those affected.
Click to expand...

there was a guy in Holland, Michigan who wanted to start a business.......he began in his parent's garage right out of college back in the 60s.......when he died his widow sold his company for $3.5B......he didn't build a Wealth Machine........he built car parts......you may have heard of his daughter.......she's currently the Secretary of Education.....
 
Hello Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa said:
Amen. I have always been relatively poor...never chased money and never accidentally stumbled onto much of it.

But I consider myself one of the luckiest people on the planet. Life has been great...and the things I missed because I did not have big bucks...just don't seem very important. A car has always just been a vehicle...not a status symbol for me; a modest house works just as fine as a mansion; clothing for me is not a thing to show off status.

I know many people of means...and several of them seem always to be seeking "more." Not the Oliver kind of more...but the "keeping up with the Rockefellers" kind.

I actually feel sorry for some of them. They seem to think that happiness and contentment are always just a few hundred thousand dollars down the road.
Click to expand...

It actually does not require much to be happy. It is a state of mind. It can't be bought.

One simply needs to be comfortable, secure, not feel threatened.

A poor man with nothing to lose is safer than a rich man with enviable wealth.

The former would have no need of a gun nor fear, but the latter might become obsessed with both, and thus experience greater stress.
 
Hello Jack,

Jack said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Trust Fund. That's the Way to Go!
Click to expand...

Might seem nice at the outset, but it may not be.

I've known some trust fund babies.

They never had to work, but are not particularly well off.

They don't seen to have a lot of self esteem.

They never had to earn anything or make any contribution to society.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Jack,



Might seem nice at the outset, but it may not be.

I've known some trust fund babies.

They never had to work, but are not particularly well off.

They don't seen to have a lot of self esteem.

They never had to earn anything or make any contribution to society.
Click to expand...

Parents worry about that. There is a downside.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the other two are done stealing it.......
Click to expand...

How ignorant. Both Obama and Hillary made big bucks off books. They both are sought after and highly paid speakers. They are not stealing.
Can Trump pay a guy enough to write books for him next year? You know Trump cannot write at all.
Trump's con has been exposed the last 4 years. He will spend millions on lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top