[Thymeclock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
Once again, in your response you address an entirely different point than the one being made.

Baloney! You must keep your (for want of a better word) mind on the other side of the looking glass, where words mean just what you want them to.

Boom! Once again James thinks he can provoke and win an argument by an aggressive response, never quoting anyone or responding to the point made, only spinning his wheels angrily and furiously.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.

Quote:
No one said that opportunity was lacking in America or that no one but the rich could become rich.

Yes, you did. Quoting, of course, but in such a way as to make the reader suppose that you agreed with the idea quoted.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.

Quote:
BTW, since you disagree, consider that there is no way the rich will become richer in a non-capitalist economy.

Certainly there is. Give financial support to those in power, and be rewarded for it.

It's obvious to anyone who is reading this thread carefully that you are essentially taking my position (about power vs. wealth) and pretending it is now yours. As I said before, power and wealth may coincide, or the exercise of power may bring wealth, or political influence may be bought, but wielding power and merely being rich are not the same thing.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.


Quote:
All true, but not the point of the statement, at all. The point is that it is easier for someone who is already rich to become richer with less effort than for someone who is starting out with few(er) assets.

Then why do we not see Rockefellers, Fords, and other scions of the 19th to early 20th century "robber barons" heading the list of the currently wealthy?

(The first Rockefeller or similar name on that list is down around #150, below such children of inherited wealth as Oprah Winfrey & Steven Spielberg.) Because those who inherit wealth generally invest it conservatively (or have it invested for them by their trust funds), and so make relatively modest gains, which tend to be spent or divided among children & grandchildren.

Yep. And they aren't getting any poorer, are they? Would you want them to be getting poorer? For all your bluster you have no purpose in this thread other than drawing attention to yourself and demonstrating how distracting and contentious you can be.

Apparently you have been watching too much of David Letterman's "top 10 list." I'm sure there are no Rockefellers in the poorhouse. They might be #150 on the list of the most wealthy, but YOU are nowhere on that list, nor will you ever be with your exceedingly contentious, hostile attitude.

Quote:
Also, regarding the poor, they will become poorer if they have no assets to invest...

So they need to acquire assets, by getting an education, saving, etc. They will become richer if their expenditures are less than income, adjusted for inflation. Plenty of poor people eventually become prosperous, even modestly wealthy. And on the flip side, it's not entirely unknown for some of the wealthy to become poor through carelessness. See for instance quite a few Madoff investors.

So once again, you'll try to drag "the kitchen sink" into this discussion in an attempt to hijack the discussion, eh? It won't fly James. All you know is how to try to change the subject constantly or misrepresent what was said, and interject hostility.

So the original statement is basically a socio-politically motivated crock.

So that's your personal opinion, with nothing else to give it credibility other than your disapproval.

But just what is YOUR motivation, James?

IT IS: denial, contentiousness, and hostility in discussion, exhibited unceasingly, with no other redeeming purpose. And when all else fails you resort to pure insults.

For you to have any credibility, James, you must quote me verbatim and address the point made, not change the point or merely shoot back at me with your spun version of what was said.