• harriedpsychmajor said on Sep 13, 2006....

  That's one of my greatest gripes with society today: materialism. People nowadays look for quick and dirty ways to accumulate fortune, and by some extreme rift in the scheme of logic it might succeed. Material wealth is just a hollow way to one-up other people, when ideally it should reflect a lifetime of diligence and self-respect.
  
  When wealth is earned through grueling work and adversity, that wealth is then symbolic; it becomes a monument to a person's successes and a triumph over all his/her failures. When money is earned through luck, it's just money; therefore money is spent in excess and eventually lost.
  
  I'm glad you brought that up. I think a man's wealth should never exceed his work ethic adn accomplishments.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 13, 2006....

  I go a step farther and say that it cannot exceed his work ethic and knowledge.
  

• joeyo said on Sep 14, 2006....

  so how does one go about being greater than ones fortune
  

• kelly said on Sep 24, 2006....

  I don't think most people begrudge someone who has honestly come by lots of money, but let's face it, there are so many people who come by it very dishonestly. But that's not my my point here.
  
  Wealth redistribution may very well end up back in the same hands, but along the way it goes through other hands and I believe this is good for a society. Not just in the feel good sense, but in the sense that when you lock many people out of the possibility of ever bettering themselves because the gap between rich and poor is so great, then you set yourself up for an unstable situation in which the poor eventually only see revolution and violence as an answer.
  
  Keeping everybody enrolled in the idea of the society because they feel like they can have a chance to "win" just seems like good sense to me. When you have nothing to lose you sure don't care about playing by the rules.
  
  Anyway, I think that's a part of the whole puzzle, but life is complex. Certainly more complex than simpletons such as Ayn Rand make it out to be.
  

• kelly said on Sep 24, 2006....

  I don't think most people begrudge someone who has honestly come by lots of money, but let's face it, there are so many people who come by it very dishonestly. But that's not my my point here.
  
  Wealth redistribution may very well end up back in the same hands, but along the way it goes through other hands and I believe this is good for a society. Not just in the feel good sense, but in the sense that when you lock many people out of the possibility of ever bettering themselves because the gap between rich and poor is so great, then you set yourself up for an unstable situation in which the poor eventually only see revolution and violence as an answer.
  
  Keeping everybody enrolled in the idea of the society because they feel like they can have a chance to "win" just seems like good sense to me. When you have nothing to lose (or win) you sure don't care about playing by the rules.
  
  Anyway, I think that's a part of the whole puzzle, but life is complex. Certainly more complex than simpletons such as Ayn Rand make it out to be.
  

• D6fer said on Jun 02, 2009....

  he he he.....you used to be quite the capitalist!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2009....

  I am quite the capitalist.  You've merely lost sight of what the word means.  I stand by each of these posts you've brought up.  The fact of the matter is that the money of GM was greater than Rick Wagner.  The fool and his money have been parted.  Now it's Obama's money to do with as he pleases.

• D6fer said on Jun 02, 2009....

  You're right that's not socialism.....I think it's fascism.....so you are all for that now? 

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2009....

  It's neither.  The government being involved in business does not socialism nor facism make.  There is nothing about capitalism that requires the government not compete in it.  Nothing.

• D6fer said on Jun 03, 2009....

  [jaw hits floor] you're kidding right? The government takes over the largest private employer in the country.....banks.....and not even a hint of socialism and or fascism?

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 03, 2009....

  The problem here is that there should be no BIGGEST private employer.  One of the basic ideas of capitalism is that competition breeds strength.  That we get better by fighting for what we have so the mere concept that we have a Biggest anything should never have been allowed to happen.  AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrystler, Ford, Microsoft (and a few other companies) should long since have been split up just like Packard Bell (or whatever Grand Daddy Bell was) before the Baby Bells were created. 

  And lets be fair in our definitions.  The government did not TAKE over.  Obama didn't show up and nationalize these companies because he's a jerk.  They fucked up so royally that they were going out of business and asked for loans.  They asked for loans so big that they consituted majority ownership of the companies.

  This is a VAST difference from Obama showing up at gunpoint and saying gimme gimme gimme.  Where is your faith that these business owners have a plan?  (I don't believe they do either I think they are treading water hoping an idea arrives) But the fact remains that Obama didn't force this .  And would again state something you have yet to argue.  UPS and USPS seem to coexist.  And whats more is their relationship reinforces OUR basic standpoint that private=better.

• D6fer said on Jun 03, 2009....

  I must admit that some tougher regulations should have been in  place to prevent this mess.....but it goes across the board.....people should not have been lent money they couldn't repay......Unions should not been allowed to reach past what a company could really afford.....toxic assets should not have been repackaged and sold.....what ever.....GM and Chrysler should of filed bankruptcy 10 years ago......I don't even remember the last time good economic news and U.S. Automakers were uttered in the same breath......Lobbyists should be outlawed

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2009....

  Addressing your points one at a time.

  1.  I agree there should have been tougher regs.  However doesn't that go against your Capitlalist Blood?  (See I can do it too)

  2.As far as the money lent to people who couldn't pay it back that is combined with the repackaging and selling of loans.  The former could not have happened without the latter.  Which is why no amount of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton pressure (sans Clinton signing the 2000 Act over riding those regulations.) did any serious harm.  But Clinton changed one law on his way out and eight years later the world tried to end.

  3.  You can't really blame unions aside from the fact that we have allowed them to acheive monopolies on labor.  Since they have NO competition at all the management has to work with them.  However it is still ultimately managements fault.  The man on top makes the decisions and ultimatly all things fall back on his shoulders.  This isn't communist russia, you can't blame the workers.

  4.  I've no real opinion on lobbiests.  Mostly because that would require a complete overhaul of DC and I don't know how to improve the current system.  I'll give you a basic breakdown of my opinion, if there is something glarringly wrong please point it out.

   

• D6fer said on Jun 04, 2009....

  2.As far as the money lent to people who couldn't pay it back that is combined with the repackaging and selling of loans.  The former could not have happened without the latter.  Which is why no amount of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton pressure (sans Clinton signing the 2000 Act over riding those regulations.) did any serious harm.  But Clinton changed one law on his way out and eight years later the world tried to end.
  
  Are you kidding? The former could not have happened without the latter?.....are you sure you don't have that backwards?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2009....

  The reason why the money wasn't lent to people who couldn't afford it was that the risk was too great.  Clinton ran around screaming give loans to poor people and the banks pretty much told him to play hide and go fuck himself.  What turned it around was allowing the loans to be divided and repackaged. 

  The idea of the repackaged loans was that you bought a portfolio that had say 12 loans.  Of the twelve say six were completely sound.  Three were probably sound and three were complete gambles.  No person would take 3 complete gambles.  But nine relatively safe and three gambles?  That was acceptable.  It just turns out that all 3 gambles fell through AND two of the probablies fell through.

  So yes I feel I have it in the proper order.  The loans were made because they were made to seem safe by evenly dividing the risk to many many investors (who often had no idea what they were purchasing)  I do feel strongly that it should not be difficult if you are so inclined to find out what you are purchasing. 

• D6fer said on Jun 05, 2009....

  you are obviously confused......janet reno threatened banks and made them give loans....where have you been?......so how does the bad loan packages come before the bad mortgages?
  
  Anyone trying to convince me that all of the toxic loans in the world would amount to either of the bailout packages would have a tough time.....personally, I think it's all a bunch of bullshit.....someone got rich from this....annnnd it wasn't me!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 05, 2009....

  When did the Bad loans start?  Theys started in 2000 which lead directly to the housing market.  No one would make bad loans  before they had the ability to repackage them in a way that seemed safe.  All of Janet's threats wer eanswered by "Yeah, uh huh we'll get right on that" until there was a vehicle to minimize the risk.  It could not have occured in the opposite order.

  The toxic loans probably equal far more than the bailout packages.  However it would be problematic to prove it.  At any rate it doesn't really matter.

Comment on "Money cannot be greater than its man."

Currently tagged	capitalism fortune money materialism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment