The Rich Are Dishonest - Petty Theft Is Not Just For The Poor

[brit1984]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

Well Adam Smith is obviously in hell for advocating sin!

In the 1950's New Zealand was a decent society where no man was excessively rich, everyone had what they needed to live a good if not exciting life, and unemployment was virtually unknown.

Since the greedies took over, there are people that live the life of Reilly, but many that are very poor, hundreds of thousands are on benefits, and gangs run amok.

Which society is better?

If you think the market economy (and the hence the motivation for entrepreneurship) was only introduced to New Zealand in 1950, I regret that I have wasted so many keystrokes discussing this issue with you.

[brit1984]

There are only people that don't pay tax because the bleeding heart incompetents in government decided to allow people to receive other people's money for nothing. Do what Singapore did and if people can't find a job, make them go and cut grass in exchange for a pittance, which is a good motivator to advance oneself.

I'm not refering to people with GENUINE disabilities, and even they can usually do something.

In the UK there are generations that have been on the dole, at the same time as they are bringing in labour from overseas to do jobs in the South East, because those in the North won't move to where the jobs are- it's insane!

I agree 100%.

[BuffaloRescue]

Hmmm. Had to think about it, but probably need a 7 figure sum in the bank to qualify as "evil" rich these days.

Anyway, it always surprises me how many wealthy people trundle along to church regularly, when the man preached that you should "sell all that you have, and give it to the poor", etc.

Have you ever heard of the concept of taxation?

All the rich people I know have paid several millions of pounds / dollars / euros in tax.

A large share of this money has been spent, by their respective governments, on the poor.

However, I do share your confusion as to why people go to church.

I wouldn't complain if all really rich people did pay tax. However, many of them avoid paying tax by various means.

Consider the millionaire that closed his factory in his own country and opened a factory in a poor country where he can pay the workers a pittance and become even wealthier- is he a "good" person, or just greedy?

What about a CEO that awards himself a 30% pay rise, while the workers must do with 1%- there is a lot of uproar about that going on in shareholder meetings right now, if you follow the news?

Or how about a certain politician that "gave" his servants millions of baht to avoid having to declare it?

CEO pay is obviously a contentious issue but if their pay demands become unreasonable, the shareholders (the owners of the business who have provided the capital for its very existence), can replace the CEO. In reality, this rarely happens because it is important to have the best CEO, not the cheapest CEO.

With regards to tax, of course, there are some rich people who avoid paying tax, or test the boundaries of tax law with various schemes to minimise their tax bill, but on average rich people obviously pay far more tax than poor people. Moreover, there is no shortage of poor people who do not pay tax.

I believe in a free market. If people want to to invest their money in dodgy investments, or give it to unscrupulous investors to invest on things they dont understand then that is their problem. If you want to invest your money in a hedge fund where the ceo pays himself 10 million a year - then that is your business.

Its a free world (or should be).

Government getting involved in business and supporting failing businesses is just criminal in my book

[thaibeachlovers]

Philisophically, I'd think that the "evil" rich are those for whom the pursuit of money is more important than living life as a "good" person. Wall St is full of those crooks, if you consider selling dud securities and betting against your clients to be a criminal activity as I do, whatever the legalities of it.

I have no problem with people that struggled for years doing a "real" job to be able to afford a nice house, car, send their kids to a good school and go on holiday in exotic places. Doctors come to mind.

Having worked in the London equivalent of Wall Street, I can assure you the financial services is not "full of those crooks". In fact, more than 99% are honest hard-working people who just want to best provide for their family, just like the employees in any other industry.

Only a very small share of these people are actually involved in trading securities, and only a tiny minority of that small group of people would engage themselves in the immoral (and actually illegal) activities that you refer to. Obviously, there are a tiny minority of bad people in all companies in all industries.

The most relevant difference between the financial services industry and non-financial industries (which by the way could not exist without the former) is that mistakes or indiscretions by financial services industry employees can have significant economic consequences, given the large figures involved.

That is why we have financial regulators. The financial crisis was caused by a failure on the part of these regulatory bodies to control the impact of the few "bad apples" among the hundreds of thousands of honest hard-working employees in the financial services industry.

Don't forget that even with your example of doctors (with who you say you "have no problem") there are a minority whose evil or careless actions lead to suffering and even death. I am pleased that you don't assume all doctors are murderers but likewise you shouldn't assume that all financial services industry employees are rogue traders.

Thank you for that. It is indeed too easy to tar all financial service workers with the same brush since the crash, and we should remember that there are sure to be good apples in the barrel along with the bad.

Unfortunately, every bank official ( other than tellers ) I have had dealings with have not given me a good impression of them as a class of people, so I am too prepared to give them all a black eye, rather like lawyers and politicians!

As someone that worked in the health service ( not as a doctor ) for 26 years, I am all too aware of the failings of doctors, but they're wonderful when you're sick!

[thaibeachlovers]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

Well Adam Smith is obviously in hell for advocating sin!

In the 1950's New Zealand was a decent society where no man was excessively rich, everyone had what they needed to live a good if not exciting life, and unemployment was virtually unknown.

Since the greedies took over, there are people that live the life of Reilly, but many that are very poor, hundreds of thousands are on benefits, and gangs run amok.

Which society is better?

If you think the market economy (and the hence the motivation for entrepreneurship) was only introduced to New Zealand in 1950, I regret that I have wasted so many keystrokes discussing this issue with you.

I don't remember exactly when, but I'd put the fundamental change down to Piggy Muldoon and his Think Big fiasco. Before that, people didn't go around talking about the stock market as if it was important, that I can remember.

Edited June 19, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[DP25]

People can get rich either as an employee (by diligently following the orders of their employer, after studying hard to enter a lucrative profession), or as an entrepreneur (by offering goods and services that fulfill other people's wants and needs).

In Thailand there a number of other ways you can become rich. And aside from the rampant corruption, kickbacks, and bribes, tax evasion in the national sport. They make the Greeks look like honest tax payers.

So no, it shouldn't surprise at all when a Thai driving a 10 million Baht car takes a bag of produce that fell off a truck. It is quite possibly the least dodgy thing he did that day.

[thaibeachlovers]

Have you ever heard of the concept of taxation?

All the rich people I know have paid several millions of pounds / dollars / euros in tax.

A large share of this money has been spent, by their respective governments, on the poor.

However, I do share your confusion as to why people go to church.

I wouldn't complain if all really rich people did pay tax. However, many of them avoid paying tax by various means.

Consider the millionaire that closed his factory in his own country and opened a factory in a poor country where he can pay the workers a pittance and become even wealthier- is he a "good" person, or just greedy?

What about a CEO that awards himself a 30% pay rise, while the workers must do with 1%- there is a lot of uproar about that going on in shareholder meetings right now, if you follow the news?

Or how about a certain politician that "gave" his servants millions of baht to avoid having to declare it?

CEO pay is obviously a contentious issue but if their pay demands become unreasonable, the shareholders (the owners of the business who have provided the capital for its very existence), can replace the CEO. In reality, this rarely happens because it is important to have the best CEO, not the cheapest CEO.

With regards to tax, of course, there are some rich people who avoid paying tax, or test the boundaries of tax law with various schemes to minimise their tax bill, but on average rich people obviously pay far more tax than poor people. Moreover, there is no shortage of poor people who do not pay tax.

I believe in a free market. If people want to to invest their money in dodgy investments, or give it to unscrupulous investors to invest on things they dont understand then that is their problem. If you want to invest your money in a hedge fund where the ceo pays himself 10 million a year - then that is your business.

Its a free world (or should be).

Government getting involved in business and supporting failing businesses is just criminal in my book

I actually agree with that.

I also think that people should be able to do whatever they like so long as it does not hurt anyone else, including taking harmful drugs because they hate their pitiful life so much they want to dope out.

The only thing that should be banned is smoking cigars or playing rap/ hip hop in my presence, LOL!

Governments should definitely NOT be able to invest taxpayer money in businesses ( think Solyndra ), and the words "too big to fail" should be banned from politicians vocabulary.

modified to allow for posting

Edited June 19, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[BuffaloRescue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor

[h90]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

If you think it to the end we will start slave trade again.

[BuffaloRescue]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

If you think it to the end we will start slave trade again.

Hes advocating freedom not slavery .. read "the road to serfdom"

[soundman]

So no, it shouldn't surprise at all when a Thai driving a 10 million Baht car takes a bag of produce that fell off a truck. It is quite possibly the least dodgy thing he did that day.

That's funny.

Though I don't think all rich, or wannabe rich flash the "borrowed" cash, are a-holes like the one portrayed in the OP, basically giving the vegetable merchant the bird as he drove past.

[bendejo]

roadkill, vegetarian style

You assume the driver of the Benz was the owner, could have been a 300b/day driver

Edited June 19, 2012 by bendejo

[theblether]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

Well Adam Smith is obviously in hell for advocating sin!

In the 1950's New Zealand was a decent society where no man was excessively rich, everyone had what they needed to live a good if not exciting life, and unemployment was virtually unknown.

Since the greedies took over, there are people that live the life of Reilly, but many that are very poor, hundreds of thousands are on benefits, and gangs run amok.

Which society is better?

Excuse me, Adam Smith was correct, however it's a little known fact that he was also a deeply religious person, and he spent a lot of his life writing treatises on religious thought. One of his best friends and contemporaries was a gentleman called David Hume

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/David_Hume

Go have a look at that man's life.......in fact while your at it have a look at Adam Smith's life

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Adam_Smith

These men were astounding in their capacity for thought and knowledge, you may know David Hume better now if you are familiar with the term Humanism, which is now one of the fastest growing spiritual thought systems in the world. His grave is still often visited by people from all around the world, and it sits forlornly at the end of Princes Street in Edinburgh.

What's my point? Adam Smith was a man that recognized the mechanisms of capitalism, but due to his spiritual beliefs, he believed that the wealth created by those that could, should be used to help those that could not.

He was disgusted by his fellow Scots getting rich using the tools of trade that he had pointed them in the direction of, and instead of building hospitals, housing and schools, the Merchant classes built ever grander mansions, and would you believe, tombs. One of the best days out you can have is to wander around the Glasgow Necropolis, to see the warrens of tombs and Mausoleums that were built by the Merchant classes.

So Adam Smith believed that money should be earned, and used for the greater good. He's not in hell, but his contemporary David Hume would tell him, that's right, your not in hell, but heaven and hell don't exist so your not in heaven either. Spirituality comes from within man.

That's what David Hume would say, and Adam Smith would get angry then you would have towering intellects battling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is the context upon which Bill Clinton said that Scotland created the modern world, at that time in Edinburgh the level of debate and scientific progress was astounding.

Anyway, here goes my favourite Edinburgh story..........and it's true. Charles Dickens had traveled to Edinburgh to visit the grave of a recently departed friend. He was walking through the graveyard with another friend when he noticed and misread an inscription upon a gravestone, he said to his friend, " That's terrible, that man has an inscription on his gravestone, here lies ............... ..........., he was a mean man". His friend laughed and said no, he wasn't a mean man, he was a Meal man. A Meal man was a corn merchant, of his day.

So where am I going with this? The idea of being cast as a mean man for eternity played on Dickens mind and he wrote the book A Christmas Carol, a story of redemption that is right on topic and one we are all familiar with.

Who was the man in that grave? none other than Ebeneezer Lennox Scroggie, who became immortalized as Ebeneezer Scrooge, so who was Ebeneezer Lennox Scroggie?? None other than the Great Nephew of Adam Smith.

http://www.adamsmith...hs-great-nephew

Mr Scroggie deeply believed in the principles of charitable giving instilled by Adam Smith, and spent his life working to build his business while using the profits to the greater good. I'd like to think somewhere that David Hume and Adam Smith are still arguing, and Charles Dickens is having tea with Mr Scroggie to apologize for demeaning his good name forever. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but these men in their own ways were giants of their time, and the world is better for them.

Just sayin'

Edited June 19, 2012 by theblether

[MrRealDeal]

Aside from one or two , it seems like a lot of people don't understand much about wealth at all . comments like a few million dollars puts you in an evil greedy catagory by defualt is stupid and incorrect , It's sounds like a whole lot of Sour Grapes to me coming from a whole lot of people who evedently don't have very much , so everyone that does must be bad ? One of my Thai reletives has a few million in usd because she fills bags of oil and sells them at the market every day for 25-30 years , others may have made it some other way , but having it , or making it , doesn't make people bad or evil .

Don't blame people who made something of themselves on your or others failure or choice not to do so.

[h90]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

If you think it to the end we will start slave trade again.

Hes advocating freedom not slavery .. read "the road to serfdom"

I don't read any book. But common sense will tell you that if you let the rich complete free, it will end in slavery. Just because they can buy the politic, the laws, the courts, the military.

Some countries in Africa or South America are clear examples, where companies have private standing armies. Buying elections is cheap if people are poor, or even easier to buy just the politicians from every party.

[brit1984]

Even leaving aside the huge taxation contribution made by the rich, making money is good for society.

As Adam Smith explained in the Wealth of Nations (1776) greed and selfishness is actually good.

In a market economy, entrepreneurs can only prosper by providing for the wants and needs of society.

Equally, employees can only prosper by contributing to this positive objective of the entrepreneur.

If you think it to the end we will start slave trade again.

Hes advocating freedom not slavery .. read "the road to serfdom"

I don't read any book. But common sense will tell you that if you let the rich complete free, it will end in slavery. Just because they can buy the politic, the laws, the courts, the military.

Some countries in Africa or South America are clear examples, where companies have private standing armies. Buying elections is cheap if people are poor, or even easier to buy just the politicians from every party.

Slavery is not an example (or a necessary consequence) of free market economic policies. A free market economy does not preclude the rule of law, which is actually what is needed to prevent slavery (and other crimes).

The "rich" are just people with more money than the average. You do not need to hate them or fear them.

In fact, given the inverse relationship between crime rates (and other social problems) and wealth, it is difficult to understand how one could vilify the rich without having similar contempt for the poor.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[tinfoilhat]

So no, it shouldn't surprise at all when a Thai driving a 10 million Baht car takes a bag of produce that fell off a truck. It is quite possibly the least dodgy thing he did that day.

That's funny.

Though I don't think all rich, or wannabe rich flash the "borrowed" cash, are a-holes like the one portrayed in the OP, basically giving the vegetable merchant the bird as he drove past.

the ops whole post is filtered through his dislike of what he perceives to be "the rich" and the careless or stupid.

he establishes himself as reasonable and "driving moderately", while the "overloaded" truck was out of control and obviously also in the wrong,

besides, since when has the ability to take on an exorbitant car loan qualified anyone as rich, and picking up a bag of veg on the highway been thievery?

Edited June 19, 2012 by tinfoilhat

[JurgenG]

In fact, given the inverse relationship between crime rates (and other social problems) and wealth, it is difficult to understand how one could vilify the rich without having similar contempt for the poor.

Because guess who is vilifying the rich ...

Brit1984, you have almost 2,000 posts in this forum and you're still making sense. Do you mind sharing how you do it ?

[cdnvic]

We'll have to all remain in suspense on that one, because this has ceased to have any relation to Thailand.