--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > new.morning wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> > > > > Smarter? Sure. Quite a bit smarter than many here. > Harvard did a study a few years back on what made people wealthy. They > determined it was luck. It is was smarts a lot of my peers who > graduated at the top of their classes would be wealthy, right?
Your statement appears to be confusing necessary with sufficient causes -- and I man both terms in a statistical, or even fuzzy logic sort of way -- lots of exceptions exist. Having smarts is not a sufficient condition for wealth as your statement above is exploring. I am referring to a more "necessary" --- but not sufficient condition. My experience in corporate life is that indeed the higher up the org chart, people tend to be smarter. HUGE exceptions. Dilbertism does prevail. But looking at averages, statistical means, even if there is a wide variance, intelligence tends to rise towards the top of the org chart. But "intelligence" is perhpas the wrong word -- even though I am thinking in terms of the multiple 8 kinds of intellegence framework: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences. Some execs are not poindexters, but, for example, do have some som compensating intrapersonal and perhaps verbal "intelligence". others are just damn bright, in my expereince. The google guys are not dummies. But another dimension, I was considering in my loose use of the term intelligence is experience in ones field -- a working knowledge. Not processing speed, but, vast amounts of detailed knowledge. For example, Murdoch knows way more about the publishing field than anyone here. 10 times, 100 times, certainly 1000 times some members knowledge. its in that sense I was thinking of him having smarts. And, from what I have seen/hard of him, he is no dummy -- processing wise. > > Is greed even a necessary requirement to be a billionaire (or 100 Mil > > player)? Are the Google guys "greedy"? is Steve Jobs? Is Bill Clinton, > > Is Oprah? U2, John Lennon -- in his day, Sean Penn? Angelina Jole? > > Dereck Jeeter?Maria Sharapova (who will soon, based on signe > > contracts, become the highet paid athelete in the world (male/female, > > all sports) -- 100 Million / yr. > > > Some of the people you mention would agree with the $12 million limit. Name them. Of the people above. I highly doubt it -- to the extent they will just give it all away tomorrow. Though thre is a good trend towards giving it away ove ones life -- a good trend I think. > What we need is the tax structure that was in place before Reagan messed > it up. 70% marginal tax rates? Thats hugely unproductive. Its an eye opener that anyone was still advocating such. > > > > Sort like watering the root? Fix / do that and EVERYTHING will be > > good. No problems anywhere if you limit assets per person? > > > > > > So are you saying that part of Murdoch's assets belong directly to > > you? What portion? What portion of the Google guys forntune belongs > > directly to you. > > > > > Oh come on now. You're trying to make me look ridiculous instead of > discussing the concept. I misread your statement, reading too fast, " We need to relieve them of the burden of their wealth and return the planet to the people to whom it belongs!" I thought you said "We need to relieve them of the burden of their wealth and return it to the people to whom it belongs!" Not to far from your actual statement, but its the latter that I was (mistakingly )asking about. However, the former statement could raise the same question. >I'm not saying I want any part of their > wealth. But doesn't logic say that fewer billionaires would allow for > more millionaires? You seem to view economics as a static zero sum game. I don't. In general, I think that a system that creates more billionaires tend to also create more millionaires. A "confiscatory" marginal tax rate of 70% simply pushes capital to unproductive means -- tax shelters -- many which are far from optimally productive, and produces less B and M illionares. Not that either is my gage of a good, thriving and fair economic system. There is a growing huge gap in the distribution of incomes. It does indicate some sickness and mal structuring of the exonomy. Corporate power over legislative and executive branches, over elections etc is the much larger factor an problem in creating a statist towards cronystic capitalism, IMO. >That might mean you might still have a chance in > this life. Just look at the wealthy messing with the politics in this > world. Murdoch is a great example. Too much concentration of ill begotten wealth is a corrupting influence. Like drug money. And wealth from exploitation an manipulation of political powoer instead of creating value. > Some of the greedy bastards own the Fed. That indeed should be > nationalized. ??? Oversight by congress and presidential appointment Board of Governors of the Fed is not exactly a private company. > Those people have a history of waging war upon the masses. ??? > > Greed is not a virtue. Neither is confiscation. Do you advocate a > > direct confiscation of all individual asses over 12 mil? If so, how > > would that be done exactly? > > > > > A major revolution would do it. :) Ah, that was prevalent idea on Telegraph ave (Berkeley) in the late 60s. One advocate I knew of, soon after shot up with Draino and was no long leading the charge. > Or I might say you display a business caste logic. Caste? 30 generations of businesmen? No. hardly. Though does selling moonshine 6 generations count? And what exactly, in your mind is a "businessman". Do you go to work. Is it at a business? Are you a man? Are you a businessman? > So you must be a > businessman right? Do you mean do i won my own business? No. But are you saying that would be a bad thing? >A registered Republican? Ha. The Republican party has so corrupted and lobotomized itself in this decade I can't see much of anything good coming from "them" for some time. I am not exactly a flaming democrat either. Isn't such dichotomous thinking sort of silly. One must be one or the other? I look at each issue and work through it. I don't rely on some talking points from my precinct boss. (Not inferring you are, just making a general statement.) But then I have seen you > write things that display some humanitarianism so you couldn't be that > unless you are going to take Curtis up on his offer. :D :D :D
