What are the many ways that people become millionaires?
Being born into a rich family
Being born
By having a good personality, being confident, and working hard
Scamming i think
Making money
By exploiting someone else's Talent and labor.
Working for a jew
being millionaires today isn't really that much today.
either way, one must have an innate advantage of sorts, be it intelligence, wealth of your parents, fantastic looks and charisma, or just some other type of luck.
it's not stealing. in a fully capitalist economy, that means you (or someone else, like your parents, in which case as possession, they are free to dispose of it as they prefer, such as gifting it to their offspring) improved overall allocation of scarce resources.
I don't get people screeching at those who were born into wealthy families, there's nothing wrong with it.
either way, one must have an innate advantage of sorts, be it intelligence, wealth of your parents, fantastic looks and charisma, or just some other type of luck.
it's not stealing. in a fully capitalist economy, that means you (or someone else, like your parents, in which case as possession, they are free to dispose of it as they prefer, such as gifting it to their offspring) improved overall allocation of scarce resources.
I don't get people screeching at those who were born into wealthy families, there's nothing wrong with it.
through hard work and persistence
Reminds me of ER trying to win the lottery in his manifesto
True, but there's nothing right with it either. So if we were to have an utilitarian ethical system it would be correct to redistribute wealth. The alternative being of course poor bastards murdering and stealing from the rich.
>there's nothing right with it
depends on your worldview. personally i respect the sanctity of private property, and so I think it is right that the owner of some wealth can dispose of it as he please.
>[in] a utilitarian ethical system it would be correct to redistribute wealth
would it? then would it also be "correct" to re-distribute intelligence? looks? strength? health?
the reality is that, it may seem "fair" to do so through a government intervention, it necessarily leads to a misallocation in factors of production and general loss in efficiency and thus value.
you are taking away wealth and the right to use it as they see fit from productive individuals, and assigning it to less productive individuals. you're subsidizing unproductiveness.
if your only reason to do so is "avoiding poor bastards murdering and stealing from the rich", you assume a 0 sum type of game in which the only way for one to get rich is at the expense of another.
people don't really care about inequality. they care about their own living conditions.
N
work a full time job for 20 years open a 401k plan with your employer and invest your savings in the stock market. Only way men like us with little job talent and shit looks do something with our lives.
N
thing is we know nature isn't equal hence why socialism will never happen. It's also good knowing we can still carve our on piece of life while very few privledged people find a way to have nothingat 40. Most sex havers will still life mog us but i know former chads who don't have shit at 50.
N
rich people don't make us incel. any retard can work for 20 years and have shit.
Last edited:
N
true. a 5 10 and 20 year wealth plan can make u giga rich in your mid 40's
N
agreed. wealth doesn't make us incel and anyone can be wealthy most people are just stipid with money and thier income.
They sort of do by raising the standards of women. It used to be that anyone who worked for 5 years could buy a house, but because of corporate greed that is a thing of phantasy.
And no working 20 years will not guarantee you a mate. Most people who get born poor stay poor.
Red herring a. Such processes are not possible, however redistribution of wealth is and it raises the quality of life for the many. If you don't care about that is fine, but it is the right of anyone to not are for your personal property too.
H
By building generational wealth slowly over time. Minimizing the amount of taxes you pay, not going into debt. Saving money for a long enough period of time so either you 30-40yrs down the line or your kid could risk starting a business and hopefully it could be successful.
Unfortunately we live in an evil society where your shit can be be stolen either by the government, crony capitalists, or thugs. So the solution would be having the means to defend your property.
Yes, there’s plenty of “takers” out there. Best to accumulate incognito or be target for lawsuit and other bad things.
For normal life it’s best to blend in with wealthy. Losers from the past can be a big negative when trying to move forward.
Have jewish roots.
socialism will never be viable because efficient allocation of factors of production without market prices is impossible. asking for socialism to be pursued is like asking for 1 + 1 to be equal to 3.
>red herring, not possible
not really a matter of whether it is or isn't possible, but whether it would be the right thing to do.
>it raises the QoL of many
that is the immediate, what henry hazlitt would refer to as the "seen". what is concerning is the "unseen". the changing in incentive structure, the misallocation of factors of production, which necessarily results in a general overall relative impoverishment.
besides the necessary amount of welfare programs, in the form of charity and mutual aid nets (because that's what it should be. you shouldn't be entitled to benefits such as welfare from society), is already the role of the market, which, until the encroachment of state welfare programs, managed to pursue much more efficiently and without need of theft.
>it is the right of anyone to not care about your property
in speaking of rights, one is adopting some sort of legal framework necessarily. personally I adopt a natural law framework, so while it is true that you don't have to "care" for other's private property, initiating aggression goes against natural law. it is the presumption that others are owed what is yours.
other thing
>because of corporate greed I can't buy a house
that isn't really the case. they, the central bankers and the etatists, have found their scapegoat in the greedy price gougers.
in reality, it is only natural to witness the current crisis when inflationary policies, distorted interest rates, building regulations, price controls, etc are enacted.
it is almost a rule of thumb that behind most economic issues we face today, if you dig far enough, you will find the pen of a regulator and lies of a demagogue.
Last edited:
Objective morality doesn't exist so.... Nothing is objectively right. It is all a matter of personal preference
60% of wealth nowadays comes from inheritance and other similar processes so the only incentive that you lose is the one responsible for nepotism.
Infographic: A New Age of Inherited Wealth?
This chart shows the wealth of new billionaires worldwide, by wealth source.
www.statista.com
Opinion invalidated. Imagine being stuck 200 years in the past when it comes to ethics. Jfl. Ever heard of the myth of the noble savage?
If you did have you ever wondered why it is called a myth? Because the only natural law is might makes right. So suck it up, do whatever you want however the poors will always be stronger than you. It is just a numerical advantage.
>objective morality doesn't exist [...] just a matter of preferencesObjective morality doesn't exist so.... Nothing is objectively right. It is all a matter of personal preference
60% of wealth nowadays comes from inheritance and other similar processes so the only incentive that you lose is the one responsible for nepotism.
Infographic: A New Age of Inherited Wealth?
This chart shows the wealth of new billionaires worldwide, by wealth source.
Opinion invalidated. Imagine being stuck 200 years in the past when it comes to ethics. Jfl. Ever heard of the myth of the noble savage?
If you did have you ever wondered why it is called a myth? Because the only natural law is might makes right. So suck it up, do whatever you want however the poors will always be stronger than you. It is just a numerical advantage.
and yet you claimed it to be correct to redistribute wealth. by which standard would it be correct if not your own subjective standard? and even if you claimed a utilitarian framework, wealth redistribution in the form of theft would be contrary to that framework in its results.
>60% of wealth comes from inheritance or similar sources.
your source doesn't say that (besides being data derived by a bunch of dishonest socialist etatist cathedralites, who are known to misuse and distort data to support their narrative). besides when they refer to "cronysm" that is also a form of redistribution. much of redistribution today happens in the form of inflationary policies and protectionism, which mostly benefit large corporations. and again it's not just the changing incentive. that's just one part of it. it is the misallocation of factors of production. most of that wealth owned by the 0.001% lies in companies, i.e. capital. to redistribute it would be to destroy industry, and to steal from very productive individuals, who have been in the past rewarded by the market for their more efficient allocation, and their chosen inheritors, just to redistribute it in favor of unproductive bums.
>might makes right
if you truly believed that, you wouldn't engage in this discussion as doing so would be a performative contradiction. besides you earlier adopted a utilitarian framework, you can't have both.
>noble savage
I'm not a fan of Rousseau, and don't believe in the noble savage myth.
my natural law foundation is the axiom of self ownership. in doing any action, one is re-asserting that action and thus its deniers are unwittingly engaging in performative contradiction.
>the poors
poverty isn't the same as inequality. I live in a very unequal country and yet most people here live much better lives than most in any other parts of the world.
Poverty strongly declines in those countries with the freest economies precisely because they allow for proper allocation of factors of production, thus economic growth which is by all means the best welfare tool ever witnessed.
No shit I claimed that in the context of a framework. Do you like to point out the obvious?
I am not talking about theft though, I am talking about taxes. Sure if wealth disparity will go past a certain level there will be theft as in looters and mobs hunting the rich, but I am not a proponent of that. It has happened in the past though with like every revolution ever.
Have you read the statistic? Looked at it? No? Oh, then kindly shit the fuck up.
What is the name of said socialists and can you prove their inherit bias? No? Then shut the fuck up.
A level of inflation is needed, otherwise everyone would be speculating with their money. A perfect example of that is bitcoin, people would rather trade it than use it for buying stuff. No currency can retain its value as it will slow consumption.
Sue, the financial industry. Most rich people invest their money in economic speculation rather than actually investing it in new businesses. And usually they invest in old legacy companies like Disney, Apple and NIVIDIA etc. After 10 years of being on market trading does not offer any rises in production or capital for the companies so I'd be all about that. Would unironically inject new capital on the market, capital that would actually go to useful stuff rather than speculation.
Learn to reeed. I merely said that the only natural law is might makes right, not that I believe in that. So kindly be more attentive or shut the fuck up.
Alright so your definition of natural law goes contrary to the common definition of it. Might as well call it something else so that no confusion would be made.
I will exclude all micronations (Singapore, Luxembourg) because their economies are not relevant to our discussion. Do you notice something? Switzerland, Ireland, NZ, Estonia Netherlands, the Scandinavians..... STRONG SOCIAL STATES. You attribute their low poverty on economic freedom, however there are many many more factors to be discussed here. Lolbertarians are worse than commies really, just ideologues. Peddle your ideology in the public square so that everyone may point and laugh at y'all!
>I'm not talking about theft, I'm talking about taxes
taxation is theft as the seizure of private property under the threat or use of violence.
>have you read the statistic
yes I have, and even in their biased claims they do not support your point. they merely reference billionaire wealth, but not overall wealth.
>what is the name of the socialists?
the data in the link you cited was provided by Oxfam, and they are known to distort and misuse data to further their political agenda.
there's a whole article on them on cato.org, even pointing out the gross flaws in methodology in the exact study cited by your source.
>a level of inflation is needed
this is simply not true. you have been brainwashed by the keynesians. Inflation, the expansion of the currency supply, necessarily leads to misallocations in factor of production.
it is a redistribution policy which makes the first receiver of the newly created currency richer at the expense of the later receivers of it. by the means of central banks, inflation shows its worst effects on fixed income groups, such as employees, pensioners, widows entitled to life insurance, etc.
further, because of the distorted signal shown in the relative reduction in interest rates, an illusory state is propagated throughout the market making it appear as though accumulated capital is higher and time preferences lower than they really are, resulting in capital consumption, misallocation, and eventual burst of the inflationary bubble.
>useful stuff rather than speculation
speculation is useful.
>learn to reed
in claiming that is the only natural law, you assign it as a "true" natural law as if that wasn't the case, then you wouldn't claim it is the only one.
>strong social state
now you're asserting that it is the social state that drove the economic success of those countries, which simply isn't true. just because one socialist policy has been enacted (in most places, only in recent years have they become so pervasive) while many others have not (many more than in most other countries, that is the point of the index), it doesn't prove that the remaining socialist policy is the key. it may even suggests that it is a burden as were all the others.
Me and 99% of people would rather not have essential good like food, housing and healthcare be the object of economic speculation by the economic elites. Of course this is not an appeal to democracy, however just a statement of fact. As for tech and other cutting edge scientific discoveries, they were all financed by governmental grants and not private companies. I honestly fail to see the utility of private economic speculation given that the only thing we have gotten in recent years are the market crashes.
Oh so you call people you don't like socialists, like the leftoids call those people nazis. Perhaps there is something to horseshoe theory. If you found some inconsistencies in the data you point it out, instead you accuse my source of being "socialists" and you neglect to read the statistic. Very intellectually honest.
Brother, have you ever heard about the monetary equation? I am assuming that you did. What happens if production goes up? The quantity of products also rises and in order to not have a price decrease (and thereby invite speculation into the process of consumption) we are forced to increase the monetary mass since we basically can't do anything about the velocity of money.
Assume for an instance that we do not increase the monetary mass and instead we let prices go down. Would you buy a car now if you knew that if you wait another month its price will drop by 2000$? Most likely not. So what does that do? It drives spending down and most firms will either have to lower production or close altogether because it isn't profitable anymore for them to create their product.
Kensianism or a variant of it is practiced by all developed countries and that is a fact. Claiming that it is simply wrong because governmental intervention is inherently evil is pure copium
Having rich parents
I've been moneymaxing my ass off, and I'll tell you. Basically you need to earn $100K+ per year and live as cheaply as possible (live with parents and take the bus if you have to), and save as much as possible, and invest almost all of your savings in tech stocks and Bitcoin (maybe not Bitcoin right now but in 2022 it was a good decision). That's what I did and I'm well on my way to my future life of being retired and SEAmaxxing in Thailand, Philippines, and Vietnam.
I got kinda lucky with investing in Palantir and Bitcoin last year, but I had other investments that went to shit and I probably would've been better off if I went 100% into an S&P500 index fund.
I got kinda lucky with investing in Palantir and Bitcoin last year, but I had other investments that went to shit and I probably would've been better off if I went 100% into an S&P500 index fund.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
