The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[TheDemonLord]

Oh yes my bad

It came out of their arse.....

They were all like bill gates and their "productivity" made them rich



sent for a divine source

Bill gates was extremely productive for the first 20 years or so, and from memory still takes an active interest in writing code.

[Brian d marge]

Bill gates was extremely productive for the first 20 years or so, and from memory still takes an active interest in writing code.

So was I
... And I still take an active interest in fixing the results of his code


sent for a divine source

[Ocean1]

Oh yes my bad

It came out of their arse.....

They were all like bill gates and their "productivity" made them rich



sent for a divine source

Either rich pricks stole their money or it was freely given to them in exchange for something they produced.

You stick with your theory, it's obviously one that excuses a wide range of personal deficits.

I'll continue to insist that the vast majority of Kiwis with money earned it.

[Ocean1]

I agree with that. But there is a difference between attaining personal productivity, and understanding societal productivity. It would make sense if they were more strongly correlated than personal unproductively and understanding societal productivity; but there'd need to be a hell of a lot more data to come in before I'd look to base a voting/political system on such an assumption.

Does being a philanthropist exclude being a capitalist though?

Of course, which is why it is a better metric to base voter eligibility on than a 1k buy in. Personally, I'd probably not vote if it were a 1k buy in (maybe if it looked close and it was a Trump vs Obama level mismatch), but I'm certainly a productive member of society by any other metric (outside of the obvious Stupid Worlder delusions).

Perhaps, although as I said in my experience people with productive habits benefit society more than those without them. But more to the point before you decide what surplus you're going to spend in which areas of society you have to have a net positive personal productivity.

Some like to claim that, presumably on the theory that capitalists don't agree with govt control over everything and therefore want to keep everything for themselves. My observations don't back that up, as I said in my experience rich pricks benefit society more than poor pricks. And be careful with "capitalist", there's plenty of rich pricks that aren't hard line capitalists, in spite of what Stupid World dogma may have to say about shit.

Maybe, but whereas personal tax contribution may be a measure of individual productivity, (not convinced it's necessarily an accurate one) it doesn't factor any level of commitment to policy change. Actually purchasing the chance to influence policy does.

I don't think either would produce a policy set that I'd want, I have to say. I'm simply pointing out that atm we have the opposite: a system whereby individual living standards are so far divorced from the cost of supplying them that you have whole nations that can't actually make the connection between production and the income directly associated with it. And voting accordingly. Rather than have the completely irrational farce that was the US elections isn't it better to attempt to reestablish at least the awareness of that link?

[pritch]

Well no, borrowing money isn't actually a trait you see among rich pricks.

In my admittedly limited experience of 'rich pricks' the opposite is the case. They use other people's money if they can.

As for them being rich because they are productive, actually most of them are rich because they were born that way. There are exceptions though, and they are perhaps to be admired rather than envied.

Being rich has it's advantages, Trump's son in law Jared Kushner(?) apparently didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting accepted at Harvard, but his dad donated $250,000 pa for eight years and Hey! he's in.

[pritch]

So here is Trump with the guy picked to be the new head of Homeland Security. Perhaps Mr Kobach should do a crash course in security 101.
This'd be funny if it wasn't tragic.

[Ocean1]

In my admittedly limited experience of 'rich pricks' the opposite is the case. They use other people's money if they can.

As for them being rich because they are productive, actually most of them are rich because they were born that way. There are exceptions though, and they are perhaps to be admired rather than envied.

Being rich has it's advantages, Trump's son in law Jared Kushner(?) apparently didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting accepted at Harvard, but his dad donated $250,000 pa for eight years and Hey! he's in.

Depends on what you consider borrowing, using share issue returns or a bank overdraught facility in business probably shouldn't be presented as pricks being rich 'cause they've borrowed it all cheap. Outside of purely commercial functions most rich pricks I know avoid borrowing money.

Really? In my experience non productive people who were born rich don't remain rich. Conversely, most productive people who fail in some venture or misfortune don't usually remain down for long. So I'd say that productive behaviour has a far higher correlation with wealth than an inheritance.

It's been said that being rich is easier than being poor. I'd agree with that.

Oh, and buying places at Harvard is fairly routine, it's not a charitable institution. What's more, given that typical course costs run to about US$50.000 pa it sounds positively cheap. I read an interesting article about US tertiary ed institution charges and they way they manage bursaries. I'll see if I can dig it out.

[oldrider]

Really? In my experience non productive people who were born rich don't remain rich. Conversely, most productive people who fail in some venture or misfortune don't usually remain down for long. So I'd say that productive behaviour has a far higher correlation with wealth than an inheritance.

It's been said that being rich is easier than being poor. I'd agree with that.

Lotto winners could be an example?

[Banditbandit]

Comment of the week


"Do you seriously expect a family that sits on Gold Thrones to help working people? "

[Brian d marge]

Depends on what you consider borrowing, using share issue returns or a bank overdraught facility in business probably shouldn't be presented as pricks being rich 'cause they've borrowed it all cheap. Outside of purely commercial functions most rich pricks I know avoid borrowing money.

Really? In my experience non productive people who were born rich don't remain rich. Conversely, most productive people who fail in some venture or misfortune don't usually remain down for long. So I'd say that productive behaviour has a far higher correlation with wealth than an inheritance.

It's been said that being rich is easier than being poor. I'd agree with that.

Oh, and buying places at Harvard is fairly routine, it's not a charitable institution. What's more, given that typical course costs run to about US$50.000 pa it sounds positively cheap. I read an interesting article about US tertiary ed institution charges and they way they manage bursaries. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Trying to justify an untenable position in a small novel ....

sent for a divine source

[pritch]

Depends on what you consider borrowing, using share issue returns or a bank overdraught facility in business probably shouldn't be presented as pricks being rich 'cause they've borrowed it all cheap. Outside of purely commercial functions most rich pricks I know avoid borrowing money.

Really? In my experience non productive people who were born rich don't remain rich. Conversely, most productive people who fail in some venture or misfortune don't usually remain down for long. So I'd say that productive behaviour has a far higher correlation with wealth than an inheritance.

It's been said that being rich is easier than being poor. I'd agree with that.

Oh, and buying places at Harvard is fairly routine, it's not a charitable institution. What's more, given that typical course costs run to about US$50.000 pa it sounds positively cheap. I read an interesting article about US tertiary ed institution charges and they way they manage bursaries. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Ummm you seem to be arguing with things I didn't write?

I'm not saying rich people aren't productive, just that most rich are people are born that way. I can think of exceptions but without spending hours looking at, and researching, the rich list I can't make a definitive list and I'm not interested in doing that.

[Ocean1]

Lotto winners could be an example?

An example of what?

A lot of them certainly don't keep their winnings long.

[Hemi Makutu]

Recall that the Donald went bust by over-capitalising his casinos.. that takes real "productivity"..

[Ocean1]

Ummm you seem to be arguing with things I didn't write?

I'm not saying rich people aren't productive, just that most rich are people are born that way. I can think of exceptions but without spending hours looking at, and researching, the rich list I can't make a definitive list and I'm not interested in doing that.

Again, my experience indicates the opposite, most of the wealthy people I know inherited bugger all. Those that did "come into" some sort of windfall don't seem any more likely to be any better off a decade later than anyone else.

All I'm really trying to establish is that individual income is, for the most part a good measure of individual productivity. You'll fine a bunch of exceptions to that, Trumps and Hiltons maybe, depending on how you value their product, but I don't know any of them, down here where "rich" probably means a net worth in the top 10% I'd say it's largely accurate.

[Banditbandit]

Again, my experience indicates the opposite, most of the wealthy people I know inherited bugger all. Those that did "come into" some sort of windfall don't seem any more likely to be any better off a decade later than anyone else.

All I'm really trying to establish is that individual income is, for the most part a good measure of individual productivity. You'll fine a bunch of exceptions to that, Trumps and Hiltons maybe, depending on how you value their product, but I don't know any of them, down here where "rich" probably means a net worth in the top 10% I'd say it's largely accurate.

I'll surprise myself (and probably you too) by saying I would have to agree with you.

I could add that there are many volunteers doing good work and highly productive who would not rate their productivity by the monetary wealth - but in the context of your arguments I would agree with you ..