This is the part of wealth the freaks me out, when you shoot right past "living as well as any human being could possibly want" to "insane ostentation for its own sake".
Like he sat down and said "Hell, I'm Michael Friggin Jordan, livin' large ain't gonna cut it, I gotta live freakin' humongous.
Whatever. He clearly put a lot of money back into the domestic AND local community by have all that built and maintained.
Whatever. He clearly put a lot of money back into the domestic AND local community by have all that built and maintained.
It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
But the people who made the car are employeed because you bought it, and it keeps a piece of British culture alive. If everyone bought Toyotas, the world would be a gray place.
You can't make quite the same culture argument for a large house, but it does keep a lot of people employed. Michael Jordon is providing for a lot of college educations when the money finally runs all the way downhill.
"The guy spent more than most people will earn in a lifetime just moving trees around.
Yeah, wealth never trickles down.
It isn't just that Jordan is mega-rich. How many people are getting rich building that darn house.
Dude, I'm a retired multimillionaire.
Really what did you do?
I landscaped Jordan's house."
This is nonsense. The people that did all the landscaping for Michael Jordan probably got paid $12 per hour, and the owners of the business made some good money.
People that do landscaping don't make more just because there is a lot of landscaping to do. Only the 1 guy who owns the business makes more.
Waiters don't make any more than their usual $13 per hour just because the economy is good. For every 10 waiters making the same salary in a good economy, there is one restaurant owner making a lot more money.
You are assuming that just because a wealthy person spends a shit load of money that makes life better for everyone. That is completely false. There is more money available, but it is taken by the people at the top. The pie is bigger, but the people at the top just take a bigger share.
This is why the annual income of the top 0.1% of Americans has TRIPLED in the last 20 years, while the bottom 50% has stayed about the same. Sure, we get more productive and do more, but then the owners and investors simply take the extra spoils.
People that do landscaping don't make more just because there is a lot of landscaping to do. Only the 1 guy who owns the business makes more.
That isn't true. When there is more landscaping to do, the demand for landscapers rises and so do wages. If the spike in demand is big enough, those landscapers quit and form their own businesses, and they also make big money.
For example, after hurricane Fran ran through Carolina in 1996, many landscapers formed their own cleanup businesses and went from dead broke to millionaires in two years.
This is why the annual income of the top 0.1% of Americans has TRIPLED in the last 20 years, while the bottom 50% has stayed about the same. Sure, we get more productive and do more, but then the owners and investors simply take the extra spoils. [/B]
And this has more to do with corporate tax rates. When you lower corporate tax rates, the rich feel more comfortable taking money out of their businesses as dividends.
You could cut that income back to where it was quite easily by fiddling with the corporate tax rates.
Gosh, thanks everybody for the lessons in dumb-fuck economics.
Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.
Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.
It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!
It is amazing to me that the economic progress that capitalism has given to all of us is invisible to you.
A middle class person now is better off than a millionaire in the 1950s. That would not be the case if there had been periodic re-distributions of wealth to "make everyone equal", and it would not have been the case if freedom were restricted so that you could not become rich.
Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.
And who put you in charge of deciding who needs what tax cuts?
Jordan got rich of the all poor dumbshits who pay silly money to go see him dribble the ball and buy sneakers simply because there is his logo on them.
Quote:
It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
Really? You pay some through your ass to get the same underengineered, low quality Ford parts that you can get on a $15k Focus.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
But the people who made the car are employeed because you bought it, and it keeps a piece of British culture alive. If everyone bought Toyotas, the world would be a gray place.
You can't make quite the same culture argument for a large house, but it does keep a lot of people employed. Michael Jordon is providing for a lot of college educations when the money finally runs all the way downhill.
Are you going to reject the best Rolls-Royce ever made because it is now owned by BMW? The best Bentley because it is VW? The best Jaguar XJ because it is owned by Ford?
The only manufacturer that has not dramatically improved via this buying spree is Volvo, because it was already perfect, and Ford is throwing out all its old designs and re-branding Volvos as Fords (Ford 500, next years Focus, etc)
As far as I am concerned, Michael Jordan can have whatever he wants. I am against the imposition of any system, by any official or government department, or law, or whatever else, that says that he (or anyone else) can't.
What is disappointing however, considering Michael Jordan's well-deserved status as a public figure for his extraordinary achievements in basketball, is that he is yet another in an endless string of the super-wealthy who are making highly visible and public statements that ostentation and gross overconsuption are at least OK, or even laudable. Many people (including millions of naive kids) who look to this man as a rolemodel of almost godly proportions now have one more cause to buy into the myth that materialism (this time in the form of gross opulence and overblown consumption) is concurrent with all the things that are actually important as regards being a human.
Is Michael Jordan any better off (in the ways that count) for owning a property the size of a small town? Hell, the poor soul probably needs GPS to find his way between the bedroom and the kitchen. It's tough to imagine how the hell can anyone could regard such a palatial establishment as "home". But there again, I have only lived in standard-size homes which fit 5 people in comfort, rather than 500.
Michael Jordan is free to own whatever house he wants.... but what a shame its something so... absurd!
That was not the point, and you know it. You are intentionally sidetracking things.
Hmm... that was exactly my point. If you're buying an Astin Martin (anything besides an old DB5 which actually appreciates in price), you're a sucker. Simple as that. Because as far as car qualities go, it sucks for the price. Your pay for the badge.
Hmm... that was exactly my point. If you're buying an Astin Martin (anything besides an old DB5 which actually appreciates in price), you're a sucker. Simple as that. Because as far as car qualities go, it sucks for the price. Your pay for the badge.
You've obviously never owned one.
No - I have never owned one. But the new AMV8 vantage looks wonderful - I don't know what you are all complaining about:
If people stopped buying aston martins (or pick some other car manufacturer if you don't like aston martins), then they will all be gone in 50 years. You mentioned buying a used DB5 - you only have that option because some rich guy bought it first 40 years ago. If you have no rich people, you lose ALL high end stuff, and you can no longer buy it, even used. All you get is Toyota.
But forget I was talking about cars - pertend I talked about owning a $100,000 pices of sculpture. or a $100,000 stereo.
Without rich people, you lose most of the funding for the arts and for high-end audio.
My point was that there were benefits to society in addition to the benefits to yourself when you buy an expensive thing like that. The artists benefit physically, and society benefits by having more cool stuff in it.
And it goes way beyond that as well. Any skilled trade that only rich people can afford (custom woodwork, cabinetry, stonework, etc) would go away if the rich did not exist.
Most importantly to this forum - anything that requires rich early adopters (such as the Macintosh) early in its history would never get have gotten started. This includes stereos, computers, and commercial space flight. Do you think that the mac mini would be available today if it were not for a bunch of rich people buying the original Macintosh, which was a very expensive toy?
Most importantly to this forum - anything that requires rich early adopters (such as the Macintosh) early in its history would never get have gotten started. <snip> Do you think that the mac mini would be available today if it were not for a bunch of rich people buying the original Macintosh, which was a very expensive toy?
I'm sorry, but your analogies and arguments just drove off the cliff (in a $100,000 Aston Martin no doubt).
of course, everyone here is probably in the world richest 1%. We have a whole lot of unnecessary and wasteful things and habits compared to the vast majority of people in the world.
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Who's place is that?
EDIT: Nevermind. Google is my friend too.
Your google skills surpass mine. Oprah maybe?
94 \t H Ty Warner \t61 \t5.0 \tUnited States \t United States , IL , Chicago
122 \tWilliam Wrigley Jr \t41 \t4.3 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Lake Forest
144 \tLester Crown & family \t79 \t3.8 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Wilmette
292 \tJohn Calamos \t65 \t2.2 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Naperville
292 \tSamuel Zell \t63 \t2.2 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
321 \tMatthew Bucksbaum & family \t79 \t2.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
387 \tThomas Pritzker \t54 \t1.7 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
413 \tMichael Krasny \t51 \t1.6 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Highland Park
413 \tPenny Pritzker \t45 \t1.6 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
437 \tJames Pritzker \t53 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
437 \tJay Robert (JB) Pritzker \t40 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Evanston
437 \tJean (Gigi) Pritzker \t43 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
507 \tOprah Winfrey \t51 \t1.3 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
584 \tMarvin Herb \t68 \t1.1 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
584 \tNicholas Pritzker II \t61 \t1.1 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
620 \tNeil Bluhm \t67 \t1.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
620 \tGary Comer \t77 \t1.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
Originally posted by e1618978
Your google skills surpass mine. Oprah maybe?
94 \t H Ty Warner \t61 \t5.0 \tUnited States \t United States , IL , Chicago
122 \tWilliam Wrigley Jr \t41 \t4.3 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Lake Forest
144 \tLester Crown & family \t79 \t3.8 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Wilmette
292 \tJohn Calamos \t65 \t2.2 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Naperville
292 \tSamuel Zell \t63 \t2.2 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
321 \tMatthew Bucksbaum & family \t79 \t2.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
387 \tThomas Pritzker \t54 \t1.7 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
413 \tMichael Krasny \t51 \t1.6 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Highland Park
413 \tPenny Pritzker \t45 \t1.6 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
437 \tJames Pritzker \t53 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
437 \tJay Robert (JB) Pritzker \t40 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Evanston
437 \tJean (Gigi) Pritzker \t43 \t1.5 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
507 \tOprah Winfrey \t51 \t1.3 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
584 \tMarvin Herb \t68 \t1.1 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
584 \tNicholas Pritzker II \t61 \t1.1 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
620 \tNeil Bluhm \t67 \t1.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
620 \tGary Comer \t77 \t1.0 \tUnited States \tUnited States , IL , Chicago
Jay Pritzker...founder of Hyatt hotels...dead now (I think).
Originally posted by addabox
This is the part of wealth the freaks me out, when you shoot right past "living as well as any human being could possibly want" to "insane ostentation for its own sake".
Like he sat down and said "Hell, I'm Michael Friggin Jordan, livin' large ain't gonna cut it, I gotta live freakin' humongous.
Whatever. He clearly put a lot of money back into the domestic AND local community by have all that built and maintained.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Whatever. He clearly put a lot of money back into the domestic AND local community by have all that built and maintained.
It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
But the people who made the car are employeed because you bought it, and it keeps a piece of British culture alive. If everyone bought Toyotas, the world would be a gray place.
You can't make quite the same culture argument for a large house, but it does keep a lot of people employed. Michael Jordon is providing for a lot of college educations when the money finally runs all the way downhill.
"The guy spent more than most people will earn in a lifetime just moving trees around.
Yeah, wealth never trickles down.
It isn't just that Jordan is mega-rich. How many people are getting rich building that darn house.
Dude, I'm a retired multimillionaire.
Really what did you do?
I landscaped Jordan's house."
This is nonsense. The people that did all the landscaping for Michael Jordan probably got paid $12 per hour, and the owners of the business made some good money.
People that do landscaping don't make more just because there is a lot of landscaping to do. Only the 1 guy who owns the business makes more.
Waiters don't make any more than their usual $13 per hour just because the economy is good. For every 10 waiters making the same salary in a good economy, there is one restaurant owner making a lot more money.
You are assuming that just because a wealthy person spends a shit load of money that makes life better for everyone. That is completely false. There is more money available, but it is taken by the people at the top. The pie is bigger, but the people at the top just take a bigger share.
This is why the annual income of the top 0.1% of Americans has TRIPLED in the last 20 years, while the bottom 50% has stayed about the same. Sure, we get more productive and do more, but then the owners and investors simply take the extra spoils.
People that do landscaping don't make more just because there is a lot of landscaping to do. Only the 1 guy who owns the business makes more.
That isn't true. When there is more landscaping to do, the demand for landscapers rises and so do wages. If the spike in demand is big enough, those landscapers quit and form their own businesses, and they also make big money.
For example, after hurricane Fran ran through Carolina in 1996, many landscapers formed their own cleanup businesses and went from dead broke to millionaires in two years.
This is why the annual income of the top 0.1% of Americans has TRIPLED in the last 20 years, while the bottom 50% has stayed about the same. Sure, we get more productive and do more, but then the owners and investors simply take the extra spoils. [/B]
And this has more to do with corporate tax rates. When you lower corporate tax rates, the rich feel more comfortable taking money out of their businesses as dividends.
You could cut that income back to where it was quite easily by fiddling with the corporate tax rates.
Now, if only we could concentrate more wealth into even fewer hands, then the rest of us would be sitting pretty, what with all the house-cleaning and pool vacuuming and grounds keeping and brass polishing gigs.
Obviously, the only way to get money into the hands of the average American is to make sure that very wealthiest among us get to live like medieval kings, so that they might be obliged to dribble some of their largess on the peasantry.
It tell you, 1850 is shaping up to be a banner year!
A middle class person now is better off than a millionaire in the 1950s. That would not be the case if there had been periodic re-distributions of wealth to "make everyone equal", and it would not have been the case if freedom were restricted so that you could not become rich.
Don't blame the rich people for spending their own money, instead blame the people that gives them tax reductions they don't need, when the state (deficit...), and the people in need could use the money more than ever.
And who put you in charge of deciding who needs what tax cuts?
Jordan got rich of the all poor dumbshits who pay silly money to go see him dribble the ball and buy sneakers simply because there is his logo on them.
It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
Really? You pay some through your ass to get the same underengineered, low quality Ford parts that you can get on a $15k Focus.
Really? You pay some through your ass to get the same underengineered, low quality Ford parts that you can get on a $15k Focus.
That was not the point, and you know it. You are intentionally sidetracking things.
Originally posted by kscherer
Makes you wonder about that "size" thing, doesn't it?
Sounds like compensation to me.
Originally posted by e1618978
It is like of like buying an Aston Martin car.
Sure, you like the car, and it cost more than most people think that a car should.
But the people who made the car are employeed because you bought it, and it keeps a piece of British culture alive. If everyone bought Toyotas, the world would be a gray place.
You can't make quite the same culture argument for a large house, but it does keep a lot of people employed. Michael Jordon is providing for a lot of college educations when the money finally runs all the way downhill.
Aston martin is owned by FORD...hmm...
Originally posted by mynamehere
Aston martin is owned by FORD...hmm...
They are still wonderful, hand built cars.
Are you going to reject the best Rolls-Royce ever made because it is now owned by BMW? The best Bentley because it is VW? The best Jaguar XJ because it is owned by Ford?
The only manufacturer that has not dramatically improved via this buying spree is Volvo, because it was already perfect, and Ford is throwing out all its old designs and re-branding Volvos as Fords (Ford 500, next years Focus, etc)
Originally posted by e1618978
hand built cars.
And this is good because...?
What is disappointing however, considering Michael Jordan's well-deserved status as a public figure for his extraordinary achievements in basketball, is that he is yet another in an endless string of the super-wealthy who are making highly visible and public statements that ostentation and gross overconsuption are at least OK, or even laudable. Many people (including millions of naive kids) who look to this man as a rolemodel of almost godly proportions now have one more cause to buy into the myth that materialism (this time in the form of gross opulence and overblown consumption) is concurrent with all the things that are actually important as regards being a human.
Is Michael Jordan any better off (in the ways that count) for owning a property the size of a small town? Hell, the poor soul probably needs GPS to find his way between the bedroom and the kitchen. It's tough to imagine how the hell can anyone could regard such a palatial establishment as "home". But there again, I have only lived in standard-size homes which fit 5 people in comfort, rather than 500.
Michael Jordan is free to own whatever house he wants.... but what a shame its something so... absurd!
That was not the point, and you know it. You are intentionally sidetracking things.
Hmm... that was exactly my point. If you're buying an Astin Martin (anything besides an old DB5 which actually appreciates in price), you're a sucker. Simple as that. Because as far as car qualities go, it sucks for the price. Your pay for the badge.
They are still wonderful, hand built cars.
You've obviously never owned one.
Originally posted by skatman
Hmm... that was exactly my point. If you're buying an Astin Martin (anything besides an old DB5 which actually appreciates in price), you're a sucker. Simple as that. Because as far as car qualities go, it sucks for the price. Your pay for the badge.
You've obviously never owned one.
No - I have never owned one. But the new AMV8 vantage looks wonderful - I don't know what you are all complaining about:
http://www.fast-autos.net/astonmarti...artinamv8.html
If people stopped buying aston martins (or pick some other car manufacturer if you don't like aston martins), then they will all be gone in 50 years. You mentioned buying a used DB5 - you only have that option because some rich guy bought it first 40 years ago. If you have no rich people, you lose ALL high end stuff, and you can no longer buy it, even used. All you get is Toyota.
But forget I was talking about cars - pertend I talked about owning a $100,000 pices of sculpture. or a $100,000 stereo.
Without rich people, you lose most of the funding for the arts and for high-end audio.
My point was that there were benefits to society in addition to the benefits to yourself when you buy an expensive thing like that. The artists benefit physically, and society benefits by having more cool stuff in it.
And it goes way beyond that as well. Any skilled trade that only rich people can afford (custom woodwork, cabinetry, stonework, etc) would go away if the rich did not exist.
Most importantly to this forum - anything that requires rich early adopters (such as the Macintosh) early in its history would never get have gotten started. This includes stereos, computers, and commercial space flight. Do you think that the mac mini would be available today if it were not for a bunch of rich people buying the original Macintosh, which was a very expensive toy?
Originally posted by e1618978
Most importantly to this forum - anything that requires rich early adopters (such as the Macintosh) early in its history would never get have gotten started. <snip> Do you think that the mac mini would be available today if it were not for a bunch of rich people buying the original Macintosh, which was a very expensive toy?
I'm sorry, but your analogies and arguments just drove off the cliff (in a $100,000 Aston Martin no doubt).
Chris, could you change that link? thanks