I want to see what would happen if we all had rich mentalities.

The rest of this post isn't directed at Interbane - who is talking about issues/topics/ideas I know nothing about.

Something is lost in capitalism and that is the team concept of America. Greed is something that motivates us to prosper but it shouldn't be what separates us - extremely successful from slaves. The hard worker who is not creative or does not excel in intelligence or ingenuity shouldn't be punished for using his meager skills to the fullest in an effort to better himself and his countrymen. He's doing what he can for his nation. On the flip side of the coin, the man able to provide his countrymen with more should be rewarded more than the average man who cannot.

Such a large divide between the two types of men should never be allowed to be created - for the health of the society - the team.

Looking back on this post, I can see morality as an issue I've chosen. That's because saying that the poor should simply throw down on the rich shouldn't be the FIRST option they should seek.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

from President Obama's inaugural speech.

Just thought this quote was relevant to some of the comments in this thread (with respect to distribution of wealth) and also to the general theme of Phillips book. The market really is dispassionate. It does not care what happens to us.

Such a large divide between the two types of men should never be allowed to be created - for the health of the society - the team.

Am I missing something? Two types of men? What are they? Rich/poor, creative/non-creative, hard-working/lazy..

Pres: "Greed is something that motivates us to prosper but it shouldn't be what separates us - extremely successful from slaves."

It seems to be an inherent part of humanity that the will to power we each have will cause this gulf unless there are increased restrictions on how far we're each able to progress. I personally can't think of any system that would be honest, open, and keep all players wealth matched to their contribution to society. The closest I can think of is that any and all corporations of a certain size should be non-profit. Those who are successful would rise to the higher paying salary positions. Money that is sitting in a savings account should be residually taxed if it's greater than a certain amount.

There seems to be a dichotomy in American thought of the rich vs. the poor; those that deserve and those that don't.

I mean to say that those who deserve are not necessarily those who produce the most. The hard working man who devotes most of their his/her life to arduous and honest labor should not be thrown scraps.

We shouldn't allow both members of a family unit to work if they don't want to. We should allow one to stay home and take care of the family unit. This doesn't happen today and it's a travesty for the nation and the family unit.

This all stems from my ideas on the investment in the future our country makes. Americans today don't want to invest in the future. We, so to speak, plant crop after crop, never fertilize the soil, and eat all the fruits of our menial labors - spitting the seeds of that fruit into the proverbial gutter. We want. We smile. Our kids will have.... I'm sure. blink blink smile blink blink consume blink blink smile.

We pay our school teachers the bare minimum and even ask them to forfeit their raises for the good of the children (because they're probably the only ones who might actually care). We are in debt, not for the purpose of investing in our own productive activities or our children; we buy luxuries instead. Because most of the things we buy come from other nations - we aren't helping the country - merely ourselves - day in and day out - a nation of masturbating brownie eaters.... decadence is what it is for a reason. The word wasn't created to describe something that never happens to a society

It's a whole way of thinking that needs to change. People need to stop attacking the common good. The common good is the common good for a reason. (Communism was obviously NOT the common good.)

Whenever I start talking about the team concept... it seems people think that they aren't a part of the team or they are too good for it. Who on this forum makes over 250,000 per year???? If not, you're on my team whether you like it or not.

Alas, it's far easier to collude if you're the top 1% than if you're the bottom 99%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

American culture was absolutely saturated with the rich thinking morality. Did their finances get the better of them or were they quite capable of that themselves?

"...'since markets express the will of the people, virtually any criticism of business could be described as an act of despicable contempt for the common man.' Once, the arrogance of the elite had involved an attempt to impose their values and sociology; now their arrogance was economic."

Phillips seems to be suggesting that the economy remained master. Perhaps the people have only recently become slaves to the particular system and have not had the time to see its immorality as it has been developing. That the common person has an unconscious striving to reach up into the higher class yet it is this striving that affects the class above? That the absolution of class thinking to a ubiquitous rich mentality upset some type of balance? Rationally the upper educated class should have seen through the thin veil and someone would have blown the warning whistle yet it did not come until much too late. How come? Perhaps Jung and Nietzsche had assumed that the slave and the master would have been better aware of the juxtaposition. Perhaps the master must realize that there are slaves to keep his home in order? A failure of the master mentality?

"...support for a market democracy of "one dollar, one vote," insistence that workers had all become 'businesspeople," and belief that the late-nineties 'market consensus' represented the high point of Western civilization - seem ludicrous a decade later."

I don't agree there should be a limit to how far a man wants to progress - so long as progress means that he creates utility for man. He is free to create and prosper from what he makes. That prosperity shouldn't be ludicrous like it is today, though.

There is a lot to be said for relative wealth. If you asked someone what they would rather have - 100,000 a year or 200,000 a year - they would pick 200,000 a year. Then if you told them that, even though the value of their dollars wouldn't be effected, if they chose 200,000 they would be put in a world where everyone else made 250,000. But...if they chose 100,000, everyone else in the society would make 50,000 - Believe it or not, they would choose 100,000 more often than not.

It's about making more than the next man. Sometimes the divide gets tooooo ridiculous. As long as there IS a divide - I think we're in business.

Then look at bell charts. You have someone who is going to work for money - he'll work so much for so much money. He'll work more for more money. Then there will be a point in which he won't work anymore. He just won't... he has enough money and he values his time more than his money.... he would rather spend his time living than working...


These are things we need to consider.... after all, companies consider the absolute minimum they can pay us. We need to consider the absolute minimum they can make to keep them happy..... right??????? There are more of us isn't there? Why do we fight ourselves? Why do we validate their 'right' to keep us poor?


Anyway, as far as solutions - I'm sorry that I don't have any quite yet. The savings account is a good idea - but I think we need to shore up holes in the tax code first.

I'm all for baby steps. Gradual. Test the waters and move ever upwards.

Unfortunately, I think it's unrealistically idealistic to hope to change the way people are, by a large margin at least. Whatever solutions we conjure must take into account the human ability to capitalize on even the smallest of oversights or loopholes. Epitomized by titles of books such as "Incorporate and Grow Rich", taking advantage of tax breaks.

We can only go so far in changing the way people think, if at all. Even if a beneficial economic perspective were to sweep our country, there's no way to enforce it to remain the stable perspective. Generations pass and people's attitudes will conform to the path of least resistance or greatest reward.

Any changes made must be of the system itself. Hoping for people to change is hoping in vain.

The truest allocation of owed debt to person would have a much more equal spread of wealth within the Microsoft corporation, rather than money pooling at the top. The system allows this to happen.

Interbane wrote:Unfortunately, I think it's unrealistically idealistic to hope to change the way people are, by a large margin at least. Whatever solutions we conjure must take into account the human ability to capitalize on even the smallest of oversights or loopholes. Epitomized by titles of books such as "Incorporate and Grow Rich", taking advantage of tax breaks.
We can only go so far in changing the way people think, if at all.
Any changes made must be of the system itself. Hoping for people to change is hoping in vain.

I agree, but Phillips says there is something about the Anglo-American approach to finance that encourages wilder speculative schemes than occur in, say, Germany and France. I wonder what accounts for this difference? Is it simply the regulatory environment that keeps the lid on in the non English-speaking countries? If so, what accounts for their having instituted that kind of environment? We get possibly into vague areas of national character here.

The truest allocation of owed debt to person would have a much more equal spread of wealth within the Microsoft corporation, rather than money pooling at the top. The system allows this to happen.

I find you cryptic here. Could you restate for me?

Each person puts forth a certain amount of effort in a days work, and are owed by someone(or many people) for that effort. Some people take a drastically larger cut than they are owed. What is the fundamental reasoning for why Bill Gates gets billions, while some of his programmers make a common salary? It's his company, his ideas, or whatever intangibles are his, but the bottom line is, what does he produce on a daily basis personally?

What if the laws governing corporations required them to give a certain percentage of profit as payment, instead of a fixed value? I guess that would punish people who are in a company managed by an idiot... Contingency pay perhaps, where you make $10 an hour, or 1% of profit, whichever is greater.