Dumaguete Info Search


Kardashian

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Notmyrealname, Mar 6, 2019.

  1. cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +730 / -0
    It's bit of glass half full or glass half empty. Pick whatever suits you. The same can be said about "self-made".

    According to:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

    He was worth $1.25 billion and was the world's youngest self-made billionaire. Since 1987, Gates has been included in the Forbes The World's Billionaires list and was the wealthiest from 1995 to 1996, 1998 to 2007, 2009, and has been since 2014.

    Unless someone gives you a billion dollars, I think it's a pretty impressive feat to obtain that kind of wealth and statistics bear that out. No one sits on their butt doing that. According to Forbes there are only about 2153 of them out of 7.5 billion people. I would use the Waltons as an example of billionaires that weren't self-made.

    On the Wry-scale of self-made, does Zuckerberg qualify?
     
  2. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,721
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,356 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Oh, is that what "Forbes" says? I simply don't agree with their definition of self-made. You can show me a billion sources that say he is self-made, I'm going to disagree with all of them. You seem to not want to acknowledge that generational wealth and privilege are one of the key ingredients to becoming a billionaire.

    It is a pretty lucky feat. There is more luck involved in becoming a billionaire...and many of these billion openly admit it. It is nothing to idolize.

    I bet you are super impressed with lottery winners too! :wink:

    So you are impressed with the numbers. Ok. What percentage of those 2153 billionaires came from poverty? What percentage came from wealthy families? I'd like to know. A sampling from the top 10 is probably going to give a good idea.

    I simply don't care enough to look up his family history. He and his executives at Facebook are some of the most unethical douchenuggets on this planet, they should be in prison for the laws and ethics they have been violating IMO...but the rules are different for the super wealthy. Idolize him if you want but this world would be better off without him or his "success".
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +730 / -0
    And you're welcome to do that Mr. Webster. :wink: In which post did I say that it doesn't help to have rich parents? I specifically mention the Walmart Waltons as an example. Every little bit helps.

    Who said anything about idolizing it? I specifically said luck plays a role in post #3. This discussion is primarily about what constitutes self-made to you.

    Now you're being silly. I might be envious, but surely not impressed. :smile:

    Admittedly impressed (doesn't mean idolize) for the 70%. Here you go. 30% inherited/70% self-made. I'm sure by your definition it's significantly less.
    https://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533
    I wasn't able to find the ones that came from poverty, but that is also debatable. I did find an interesting statistic.

    Last year, the top 26 wealthiest people owned $1.4 trillion, or as much as the 3.8 billion poorest people. The year before, it was the top 43 people.

    Just trying to open up you mind. You seem to have contempt for successful people. Acknowledging ones successes is not the same as idolizing one's successes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019
  4. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,721
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,356 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    Since you brought it up let's see what Mr. Webster has to say about it:
    If your family wealth paid for you to go to a prominent ivy league school and you used their existing political, judicial and/or economic influence...well, did you really achieve your success through you own efforts? I say no, Webster also says no. (If you like we can look up the definition of "own" as well.) Inheritance is only one of many ways a person can get support from their family, Forbes definition ignores everything but inheritance.

    "Little bit"? Coming from a family worth millions is not a "little bit" of help, it is a massive amount of help.

    I did. I brought this up because there is a huge portion of the US population that does idolize the rich and famous. They think it is obtainable. It is not. It is such a pipe-dream that I can tell anyone I meet with absolute certainty they will NEVER achieve it.

    I don't get why you are impressed with billionaires then. A person is just as likely to be born into a wealthy and influential family as they are to win the lottery.

    "Inherited vs Self-made". Apples and oranges. We aren't speaking the same language. Yeah, very few have inherited over a billion USD...but they have built on to their family's wealth, influence, fame and privilege.

    Not just my definition, Mr. Webster's as well. But maybe we should just stick to what the media conglomerates defines as "self-made"...surely the owners of companies like "Forbes" aren't biased in any way. I mean, it's not like "Forbes" is a family name or anything. :rolleyes:

    I wonder if the Forbes children think they are also "self-made" since they didn't inherit a billion dollars from anyone, I mean...what has starting off with the best education money can buy, zero debt, Millions of USD cash and your family name on one of the most prominent financial magazine ever done for anyone? Self-made all the way! :meh:

    I suppose that isn't all that interesting, it is expected. In our current system wealth breeds wealth, poverty breeds poverty.

    No contempt. The wealthy becoming more wealthy is the norm, it is the way the world works. There is nothing inspirational about compound interest, stock market growth and utilizing tax "loopholes" (I do all these things myself).

    What I would like to see change is these huge company mergers stop, monopolies broken up, for corporations to stop being seen as "individuals" (or to actually be seen as individuals and be forced to close their doors and cease all business activity after they have been convicted of a crime, similar to an actual prison sentences for actual individuals), their executives be held accountable for their decisions and for it to be made illegal for corporations to donate to political campaigns. I would like to see these corporate executive c*nts that are busted stealing millions, even billions, from the poor be sent to prison for longer than a guy that stole $50 from a gas station. I'm sure there are plenty of other things I would like to see...but will never happen.

    So again, not contempt, I just want them to be forced to play the same game with the same rules the rest of us are playing with.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  5. cabb

    cabb DI Forum Patron ✤Forum Sponsor✤

    Messages:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Ratings:
    +730 / -0
    I agree with this, but then it's a bit off topic.
     
  6. SkipJack

    SkipJack DI Member

    Messages:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    59
    Ratings:
    +112 / -3
    Blood Type:
    I don't know.
    I agree that there are some unintended consequences of our mad max free market economy.

    For the most part, in our current system people who compete well and acquire wealth make the decisions of how much wealth does not get spent on consumption and instead gets invested in future development. They also choose what future development projects to invest in. In this way they are the capital investment managers of our society.

    Under your scenario the wealth will be taken away from them.

    What process do you propose that will choose who makes the capital investment decisions? Where will the 70% of profits go and what process will determine who decides what to do with it?
     
  7. danbandanna

    danbandanna DI Forum Adept Veteran Marines

    Messages:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Ratings:
    +258 / -0
    Blood Type:
    AB+
    At least that 70% will not end up in "off shore tax shelters" ....
     
  8. Rye83

    Rye83 with pastrami Secured Account Highly Rated Poster SC Connoisseur Veteran Army

    Messages:
    10,721
    Trophy Points:
    451
    Occupation:
    Electronic Warfare
    Location:
    Herat
    Ratings:
    +12,356 / -11
    Blood Type:
    O+
    They aren't investing. They are hording it.

    And they aren't elected. They absolutely should not be trusted because they are accountable to no one. They are going to do what is in their best interest, not society's. We have already seen how this plays out with monopolies. It isn't good.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. SkipJack

    SkipJack DI Member

    Messages:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    59
    Ratings:
    +112 / -3
    Blood Type:
    I don't know.
    You misunderstand the situation.
    Raising taxes to rates higher than foreign countries will drive more capital into offshore tax shelters in foreign countries.
     
  10. SkipJack

    SkipJack DI Member

    Messages:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    59
    Ratings:
    +112 / -3
    Blood Type:
    I don't know.
    This is not possible. If they simply hoarded it in a closet somewhere their wealth would decrease every year at the rate of inflation. Even if they just let it sit in a bank earning interest it would be loaned out to investors. (Home loans to build homes, etc.) Wealthy people get wealthier by investing their money to make profit.

    Corporate board members are elected by the shareholders.
     
Loading...