1 1
brenthutch

What are we going to talk about now?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 Simply state the truth which is that as long as you are getting yours you do not give a fuck what happens to anyone else? Set yourself free.

Who am I supposed to be looking out for?  What is happening to someone else because of the things I do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lack of curiosity about the consequences of your actions and uses kinda says something. When you find a $5 bill, do you look to see if a 5-year-old is looking frantically, or just pocket it?

Sometimes the consequences of my gain for someone else aren’t worth it. Enough is when I can eat healthy food when I want to, sleep somewhere comfortable, protect myself from the elements, and have relationships with others. Everything else is gravy  

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post indicated to me a lack of considering that. Someone is impacted by virtually everything we do. Sometimes we do it anyway, and generally that’s just fine, because someone else is impacting us. But it pretty much always enters my thoughts. 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It was just the content of the statement. I assume you’re basically a good guy,

maybe we just have a different approach to considering consequences. 

Wendy P. 

I'm curious to how that adds up WRT Bloomberg.

Who actually NEEDS 65 Billion?

Who actually needs 1 Billion?

Hell - who actually needs more than say 10 million?

I'll raise the same argument with Trump as with Bloomberg.  How can you be behind someone that hordes that much money without dispersing it down to a fair amount of needed wealth.  It is obvious there are millions of people that could benefit if he would just give up all but say that one measly billion.  It's pretty obvious that he has a serious case of the "Me, Me, Me's" (ETA: They both do)

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm curious to how that adds up WRT Bloomberg.

Who actually NEEDS 65 Billion?

 

Someone who runs a business and needs to finance a big expansion?
Someone who wants to send people to Mars?
Someone who wants to change the world in favor of X?

Lots of reasons.  And it's often not to buy a bigger yacht.

Quote

Hell - who actually needs more than say 10 million?

So if you got that much you'd just give it away?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, billvon said:

Someone who runs a business and needs to finance a big expansion?
Someone who wants to send people to Mars?
Someone who wants to change the world in favor of X?

Lots of reasons.  And it's often not to buy a bigger yacht.

So if you got that much you'd just give it away?  

Yes - BUT . . . and here is where that kind of thinking an mine differ . . . I wouldn't amass that much.

I will keep enough that my holdings are just 3% above self sustaining, along with a moderate lifestyle.

I don't need 3 houses, or two houses and summer camp. (Only for rentals and real estate investment)

I will have enough to give my daughter a nice nest egg when I'm gone. ( Not more than she can currently earn in 5 years.) 

She will have to work for her way in life.

Everything else will be split between 4 charities I currently contribute to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

and the profits from the company would cover that.  or they could use equity or just get a loan. 

Correct.

My businesses have all been self supporting after the initial investment.

My personal wealth, what little there is, wasn't ever part of the equation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

politics is the art of compromise, always has been and always will be.  the thing is, we need to shift the compromise from benefiting the wealthy to benefiting us all.  i have no illusions that anyone will ever stop the back room deals where everyone makes something off the deal and i don't want to, that is a whole other campaign and job i cannot handle.  what i want to do is get them thinking about how to best take care of the people rather than just how to best get re-elected.  they have made it legal to get insane amounts of money so there is no reason for them to be breaking the laws that do exist and for the boss to pardon the ones that do get caught.  i don't care a lick if a senator gets a sweet job for his nephew or a representative gets a kickback for taking care of his people.  that keeps them from doing what they have done which is becoming nothing but paid shills for whatever interest has enough money. 

 

as long as they take care of their job and the people, then if they can legally get something extra, so be it.  turns out that taking care of the collective is progressive thinking, and the article i read said that is mainly why most people don't adopt it, as smarter people tend to have progressive thinking and we all know the distribution of smart folks.  so we may be doomed to the "me" attitude for a bit longer but i will be damned if i allow open criminals to represent me without doing something about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

and the profits from the company would cover that.  or they could use equity or just get a loan. 

Some people, and some businesses, do not like the added costs and risks of loans, lines of credit, or someone else holding interest and power over your decisions and actions. In businesses it can be a deadly risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Correct.

My businesses have all been self supporting after the initial investment.

My personal wealth, what little there is, wasn't ever part of the equation.

 

Do you have any employees who are counting on you to have your financial act together if hell hit's? You know, everyone remembers 9/11. I remember 9/12 when I woke up upside down on every investment, very leveraged and no clue when I'd be able to turn a prop again. But I was able to stay calm and everyone got paid because I had a years operating income in reserve. So if it's only you and it's a one man show go as thin as you like. But when others are counting on you it's a different show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Yes - BUT . . . and here is where that kind of thinking an mine differ . . . I wouldn't amass that much.

Cool. But what if you enjoy owning your company, or feel a duty towards it or whatever reason you don't want to sell? Then you're going to keep getting wealthier as a simple consequence.

 

Quote

Everything else will be split between 4 charities I currently contribute to.

If Bloomberg is worth $65Bn then at times in his life he will have been getting wealthier to the tune of several $Bn a year. You can't split that between 4 charities. (Not to mention that acces to actual liquid wealth will have been much spikier). This is the thing about modern income inequality that it's too big to actually grasp. Giving away tens of billions in the most useful ways is actually a pretty massive task that would take a lot of people a lot of time to do properly. Especially since you'll be accumulating billions more while they're trying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, normiss said:

Some people, and some businesses, do not like the added costs and risks of loans, lines of credit, or someone else holding interest and power over your decisions and actions. In businesses it can be a deadly risk.

if you are tying your personal wealth to your business, then you are doing something wrong.  maybe you don't need a loan, but then you didn't need the 3 tasting rooms either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jakee said:

Cool. But what if you enjoy owning your company, or feel a duty towards it or whatever reason you don't want to sell? Then you're going to keep getting wealthier as a simple consequence.

I've sold all the ones I started.

The profits are in an account accruing interest.

When I had them, The companies themselves had accounts with operating capital.

None of my personal investment was left.

 

Had they made millions and millions -I would have made a plan that included operating costs, investments, and then kept on with my formula.  I'm not greedy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if you are tying your personal wealth to your business, then you are doing something wrong.  maybe you don't need a loan, but then you didn't need the 3 tasting rooms either. 

Of course.  And Tesla doesn't need to sell hundreds of thousands of cars.  And SpaceX doesn't need to reuse their rockets.  And Grumman didn't need to make the lunar lander.  And Innogen didn't need to develop yet another vaccine last week.

Still, we're probably better off because of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I've sold all the ones I started.

If Bloomberg had sold his company when it first started becoming extremely successful then what would have been achieved in humanitarian terms? He would be less rich, but some other people would be massively more rich. Why is that better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

If Bloomberg had sold his company when it first started becoming extremely successful then what would have been achieved in humanitarian terms? He would be less rich, but some other people would be massively more rich. Why is that better?

NO ONE - should be that rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kallend said:

What do you propose, a wealth tax?

I don't remember ever being opposed to that.

I think 3% should do it - 2.5 maybe?

ETA - I do remember a conversation where I disagreed with how it would likely be used.

I am wholly in favor of it - if it can be used to pay down the debt.

I believe it was stated that I could not control that - and the money would be be used for other things, rather than what I desired them to be used for.

I don't think social programs are in as much dire need as the debt.

Edited by turtlespeed
memory came back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1