No one needs to respond to your made-up bullshit with actual figures other than to point out the fact that you're making shit up.

Check these out:

The Natural History of the Rich: A Field Guide - Richard Conniff

Giants: The Global Power Elite - Peter Phillips

The 1st book is a comedic portrayal of the lives of rich people, digging out facts that make them look like interesting animals in a zoo.

The 2nd book is actually less a narrative book and more a long documented list of corporations and wealthy people, who they are, and how much money they make. And there's a summary in every chapter describing what the list is about. Data used is recent.

Sure they can pool their own savings, but it’s unlikely to be enough to buy a factory and machinery. — Brett

Because all of the wealth is held by someone else instead. Which is exactly the problem.

Consider for a moment society as a black box, with no insight into how anything is distributed inside of it. There's a certain amount of capital in use, and another amount available to be used for new things; and a certain amount of labor in use, and another amount available to be used for new things. To get a new thing done, that society needs to get some of that reserve capital out and apply some of that reserve labor to it.

Now let's peek inside that black box. As we have it now, that reserve labor is poor unemployed people, and that reserve capital is rich people's savings. To get anything new done, someone has to borrow that reserve capital from the rich, and pay some of it to the unemployed poor for their reserve of labor, but not pay too much of it to the poor workers because they need enough left over from the produce of this new activity to pay back what they borrowed from the rich owners plus interest.

There could instead be a society where that reserve labor is leisure time that all people have on their hands because they can all meet all of their needs with less labor than their maximal output (because their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses like rent are so low), and that reserve capital is the savings that all those people have because they're all capable of earning more than they need to get by (because their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses like rent are so low). So to get anything new done, you just need to get enough people to agree to pool their time and money together to make it happen.

There's the same amount of labor and capital in society in either case, and the same amount needs to be unused in reserve in order to make new ventures possible in either case. It's just the distribution of it that's different between the two scenarios.

So if there is enough reserve capital and enough reserve labor to enter into new ventures, but we don't have that idyllic scenario where everyone has leisure time and money saved up, both of which they can contribute to new ventures that they like, then that's entirely because something about the distribution of spare time and spare money is screwed up somehow. If we really can afford to enter into new ventures, then necessarily we have enough spare time and money to do that, so necessarily we could afford to have that idyllic society. And since we don't have that idyllic society, there's a lot of poor and overworked people for no reason other than that some people who get to make those decisions decided they would rather have even more leisure time and extra money at the expense of everyone else.

Or possibly it is the case that there actually isn't enough reserve capital and enough reserve labor in society altogether to really be able to afford to enter into new ventures, but we're nevertheless entering into them anyway, because some people get to make the decisions on what money gets spent on and what gets worked on, so the things they want made and done get made and done, while other things that many many other people desperately need made or done don't get made or done because those many many other people don't get any say in the direction that society's resources get used.

that reserve capital is the savings that all those people have because they're all capable of earning more than they need to get by (because their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses like rent are so low). So to get anything new done, you just need to get enough people to agree to pool their time and money together to make it happen. — Pfhorrest

Who are these people working for that pay them so well that they have enough excess money to save and eventually pool their money for some other collective venture? And if their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses are so low why would they want to go any further, what could drive them when they already have enough.

Who are these people working for that pay them so well that they have enough excess money to save and eventually pool their money for some other collective venture? — Brett

The collective venture that they already work for, of which they are part owners. Or in other words: themselves, with nobody else siphoning all the cream off the top.

If you're wondering how to get to there from a state of affairs where everyone works for someone else (and so has no spare time or money) except for the tiny fraction of people at the top: that's a good question. That's the question of how to change from what we have now to something better.

Perhaps another question could be illustrative on answers to that: how did we get from the initial conditions, that weren't like this, to this? In the beginning there were just naked people wandering around hunting and gathering, nobody owned anything, everyone was equal, all they got was the product of their own work, and what their tribe would share with them of the product of their work, both of which were consumables, because all productive activity was about collecting food.

Then agriculture was invented, and people had to claim little plots of land for themselves to grow food on if they wanted to jump on the agriculture bandwagon. To begin with, anyone could just claim any plot of land, because nobody owned anything, and you couldn't very well stop someone from using some bit of land while also tending to your own; you could only really defend what you yourself could use.

But fast forward 11,000 years or so and somehow (that I'm sure others here will be happy to elaborate on) by then instead of everyone farming their own little bit of land, a few people with armies at their behest own all the land, and anyone who wants to farm on it has to give a share of their crop to their land-lord, or else fuck off... to some other land, where some other lord will give them the same deal. Or you can just die. Your choice.

Fast forward a few more centuries of industrial progress and now there are productive things to do besides farm, the product of which you can trade to a farmer for your food, and for a historical moment it's a bit like the dawn of agriculture, you can just do something else besides farming using other stuff that isn't all owned by the lords, which is glorious freedom in comparison.

Until a few more centuries down the road and now all of the stuff you need to do any of that stuff is also owned by a tiny handful of people, and you're back to accepting your new lords' deal or fucking off... to some other lord who will give you a similar deal. Or you can just die. Your choice.

How do we get from there back to a world where ownership is widely distributed again, and keep that from falling back into this shitty situation again? I think I know an answer to the latter, but if you're got an answer to the former I'd love to hear it. Closest thing to an answer I can think of is "convince everyone that it's possible and desirable", because when the rubber hits the road everything is a democracy, whether it's the ballot box or the ammo box the people are using. Whatever cause has the most people for it and the fewest against it wins.

And if their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses are so low why would they want to go any further, what could drive them when they already have enough. — Brett

You can always have even more. Maybe someone has an idea for something that will let them get the same work done in even less time. Or more work done in the same time to have more and better stuff for the same work. So long as there is still something that someone has to do that they don't want to do, or things people want to do but can't, there will be motive to try something new to make that better.

And if we do eventually get to the point where nobody wants for anything, well then we don't need to start any new ventures from there, do we?

How do we get from there back to a world where ownership is widely distributed again, and keep that from falling back into this shitty situation again? — Pfhorrest

That is my point. How does it get started?

I think home ownership for those who want it would be a good beginning. It’s an asset you have to look after, it gives you a stake in the community, and it serves a greater purpose than just being an asset.

But then people need secure, reasonable wages to manage it.

However, the irony is they need other people’s money to get started.

That is my point. How does it get started? — Brett

http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel.html

I think home ownership for those who want it would be a good beginning. — Brett

I agree completely. Inaccessibility of home ownership is my #1 economic concern, and the biggest root of pretty much all the other problems IMO.

However, the irony is they need other people’s money to get started. — Brett

Or we could just stop letting other people take their money.

That's the principle behind my invalidation of contracts of rent and interest. If just owning something (to lend out) can't be a source of free income, then there is no market for those things (like housing) except for the people who need it for their own use, so those who currently own more than they're using (to lend out) would have no use for it other than for its sale value, and no way of getting that sale value except by selling on terms that people who need it for its use value -- those who would otherwise be renting it -- can afford.

So, looking just at housing here though this principle applies to all capital, if contracts of rent were not valid, those who currently own rental housing would voluntarily sell it to those who would otherwise have been renting it on terms that are as affordable for them as their rent would have been, because the only alternative is taking a total loss on it.

Or looked at the other way: the validity of rental contracts gives those who already have more capital than others both means and motive to acquire more and more still, at the expense of those others, distorting what the natural free market would otherwise look like. Invalidating those contracts would restore the natural, more egalitarian equilibrium of the market, and keep it that way.

Thanks, I’ll have a read of that later.

My problem is I largely agree with you but it’s the mechanic of it that I find problematical. Because to bring and end to the renting situation as it is requires action by the government. And governments are notorious at misunderstanding or messing up these things and in the end wasting a lot of money and messing things up to the degree that they’re worse than the problem they tried to resolve.

Edit: and when a house becomes an asset, even owned by an individual not a landlord, then the market heats up.

Now at the risk of name calling I’m going to suggest that the someone who could make this happen is someone who everyone seems to despise.

to bring and end to the renting situation as it is requires action by the government — Brett

Technically it requires inaction: it needs to stop doing something it already does (enforcing certain contracts). But yeah, practically speaking it should really do some kind of gradual transition from this to that, which would require doing something. And I don’t trust them enough to expect they would do it right. Nevertheless they are currently doing something wrong, so I would still like to see them try to change.

when a house becomes an asset, even owned by an individual not a landlord, then the market heats up. — Brett

Only to the extent that there is value to that asset. If the only value you can get out of a house is your use of it, there is no value to you in owning more housing than you can use, so no motive for you to buy it, so no heating up of the market from that.

Now at the risk of name calling I’m going to suggest that the someone who could make this happen is someone who everyone seems to despise. — Brett

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting Trump would unmake landlords? The guy whose main business has been being a landlord?

No, but I see how you might think that.

What I’m saying is why not one of those 1% being given the challenge to fix it, even if it was a 50 year contract. Who else would have the ambition, the drive, the ability and imagination to make something so big happen if they were given a clearly measurable objective?

What I’m saying is why not one of those 1% being given the challenge to fix it, even if it was a 50 year contract. Who else would have the ambition, the drive, the ability and imagination to make something so big happen if they were given a clearly measurable objective? — Brett

If one of them honestly wanted to do that, then more power to them. But I find it unlikely that someone with such immense power would voluntarily work to unmake their source of that power.

But I find it unlikely that someone with such immense power would voluntarily work to unmake their source of that power. — Pfhorrest

It’s a big challenge. It’s the sort of challenge someone who likes a big project might take on, someone with real ambition. Of course if you believe their raisin d’être is profit then you can’t see it happening. And governments serve short terms and new ones can mess up the plans of the previous, and even then they’re always in election mode. But where else could you turn and how else could it happen?

Like the idea that they work hard. Hardly fabricated. — Brett

Yes, that is fabricated if there's no evidence to support it. When it comes to this particular idea, there's indications that the trend is toward inherited wealth. Picketty discusses this at length. So again, why should I believe your generalization over others? Where's the beef?

So you don’t yet know what the answers are, which is why you want research, but you know I’m wrong. How do you explain that? — Brett

I never said anything about knowing you're wrong. But if you're right, you've not demonstrated it with anything other than simple assertions and statements about "reading and thinking." So again, if I said something like "the rich are generally very nice people" -- would that be something informative?

I appreciate it, thank you.

Yes, that is fabricated if there's no evidence to support it. — Xtrix

But I did give evidence. I put up information on the early life of Carlos Slim, Larry Ellison and Sheldon Adelson. I know that’s only three individuals out of many. But regardless you can’t say my thoughts on hard work are fabricated. And while I’m at it I notice you don’t call my list of negative traits a fabrication.

you've not demonstrated it with anything other than simple assertions and statements about "reading and thinking." — Xtrix

A bit of experience, a bit of reading, a bit of reasoning. — Brett

That’s my actual statement. First of all experience. You don’t have to believe me, but experience is not fabrication. Nor is reading. That’s why you asked for some reference to reading on the subject. And reasoning? Well that’s what we base a lot of our conversation here on isn’t it?

I have not said I find these people innocent or good, I’ve just commented on what appear to be traits of people who succeed.

But you said you wanted some reference on these people

who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks.”

And yet without actually having read anything others referred to, unless you’re a speed reader, you have somehow determined that my comments are fabrication.

I think it's often forgotten that behind major corporations there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

Right. That’s where your interest lay. Not exactly quantifiable traits based on statistics are they? How are you going to measure them? At least my comments on hard work are measurable.

Somehow you went from seeking information on their “ thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values” to proof that "the rich are sociopaths."[/quote]

Whatever personality traits there might be in common between rich people, it’s worth bearing in mind the different potential causal relations there. Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, or does being rich make you a certain kind of person? There are probably at least a few causal relationships in each direction, but I would suspect that wealth has a far greater impact on personality than personally has on wealth, because there are many other systemic factors besides personality that are causally influential on wealth, but most of the factors that causally influence personality are in turn themselves influenced by wealth.

Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, — Pfhorrest

I think being a certain kind of person will determine just how someone becomes rich. Pablo Escobar was rich, something like 30b.

But like minded people, within reason, will associate with like minded people. But everyone does that. So I don’t think wealth itself is the reason that those people come together.
Wealth obviously can have an impact on personality, but in what way? I think the general feeling here is that wealth corrupts, if not the personality then in the effects of their actions. Which may be the same thing. But surely wealth creates many things that are good. Can wealth only contribute the bad?

but I would suspect that wealth has a far greater impact on personality — Pfhorrest

Wealth is a subjective idea, don’t you think? So do you think that might apply to all people, not just the wealthy? When it comes to wealth, or just having money, people are generally susceptible to its affect, whatever the reasons, even not having money. There are many reasons people want money, where do you separate or draw the line between wealth and personality being the driving force?

I know that’s only three individuals out of many. But regardless you can’t say my thoughts on hard work are fabricated. — Brett

Yes, I can.

And while I’m at it I notice you don’t call my list of negative traits a fabrication. — Brett

Yes, I do.

That’s my actual statement. First of all experience. You don’t have to believe me, but experience is not fabrication. Nor is reading. That’s why you asked for some reference to reading on the subject. — Brett

Are you really not understanding this, or just arguing in an attempt to save face somehow?

You made a bunch of statements without support, and you know it. Stop wasting my time.

You made a bunch of statements without support, — Xtrix

What sort of support would I need to satisfy you?

Donkeys work hard.

I never yet met a wealthy donkey.

Chomsky says they aren't organized, but behave as if they are. Human nature on display?

You made a bunch of statements without support, and you know it. Stop wasting my time. — Xtrix

“So what makes wealthy people different?”


1. More extroverted.

2. More conscientious.

3. More emotionally stable.

4. More self-centered.

‘The "entrepreneurial personality profile" has been described by a combination of high extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness as well as lower agreeableness and neuroticism.
This constellation is thought to address typical affordances [yep: researchers love awkward phrases] of being an entrepreneur such as acquiring new customers, managing finances, developing innovative products, negotiating with suppliers, and coping with enduring phases of uncertainty and risk.’

https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-rich-people-think-differently-than-everyone-else-this-new-study-reveals-personality-traits-of-self-made-millionaires.html

Research:

The Journal of Analytical Psychology

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjop.12360

What motivates a billionaire to keep working?

Status is a very big part of it. They want to win. That’s part of the motivation. We’re all competitive in our own way. It’s part of our tribal DNA. If you think about tribal societies, the person who has the most power also has the most access to resources, and they can protect and provide for their family. The closer others are to that leader, the safer they feel. It’s the pursuit that brings them happiness — the pursuit of business goals or their passion, that is giving them joy. The money is a side effect, but it’s not what is giving them joy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/your-money/inside-the-minds-of-the-ultrawealthy.html

Chomsky says they aren't organized, but behave as if they are. Human nature on display? — frank

That was sort of the point of my last comment about direction of causation. I expect that rich people tend to be just like anybody else would be if they were rich, because it’s not being the way that they are that made them rich, but being rich that made them the way that they are.

it’s not being the way that they are that made them rich, but being rich that made them the way that they are. — Pfhorrest

So you disagree with my “supporting evidence”?

Chomsky says they aren't organized, but behave as if they are. Human nature on display? — frank

I missed what this is referring to. Who's "they"?