Here's someone who has moved on...

[Cardboard]

"Why would anyone believe the system is just if it's basically impossible for the poor to become rich?"

 

I don't know in what world you leave in but, I see a ton of poor who became rich and some famous.

 

Can't say the same about Europe. At least, not at all to the same degree.

 

Cardboard

[rukawa]

They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just.

 

Yeah, except you missed the second part of what I said.  If you don't have reasonable income mobility, you don't have justice.  Why would anyone believe the system is just if it's basically impossible for the poor to become rich?

 

Its probably never been easier for people to become rich in human history. The truth is that all of us are incredibly lazy and entitled. I include myself in that category. Reading the biography of Rockefeller I realized how much more difficult and harder people used to work than today and how much more disciplined they were. Its basically insane the difference. Rockefeller, after he became fairly wealthy, was horrified when his child ate a second piece of cheese, instead of eating just one piece of cheese. Its ridiculous. 

 

The problem is not that things are too difficult. Its that life is way too easy. And the funny thing is the easier life gets the more dissatisfied we become and the more we complain. The inequality we have is the result of too much opportunity. Not too little.

[RichardGibbons]

I don't know in what world you leave in but, I see a ton of poor who became rich and some famous.

 

Can't say the same about Europe.

Cardboard

 

Yeah, I guess it really shows to you how inaccurate your own anecdotal experiences are compared to the real world, solid statistics, doesn't it?

 

At least, not at all to the same degree.

 

By degree?  I guess by that you mean, in America, you can have people are so poor that they die from bad luck because they can't afford health insurance, and sometimes incredibly poor people becomes multi-billionaires--though an absolutely infinitesimal number of them.  Whereas in Western Europe, you don't have many people who die from bad luck because the have no health insurance, but they also have a much better chance of becoming millionaires, but not billionaires.

 

I guess that would be a difference of degrees, sure. By attempting to reduce the impact of bad luck, left wing programs result a lower standard deviation of net worth, and this is, in fact, one of their purposes.

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

Its probably never been easier for people to become rich in human history.

 

I was actually curious if this was true--interpreting it as "social mobility is higher now than it used to be"--not quite the same thing, but in the same ballpark.  My reading, based on this and a couple other search results, is that post-war, there was a large surge in absolute mobility, caused by the structure of the workforce changing (people naturally moving into more valuable jobs), but the relative social mobility--the chance that two people in different classes ending up in different class destinations than the rest of their class--was small.

 

So, I interpret that as--people in general are richer on average because a tide has lifted all boats. However, the chance of them becoming rich isn't actually any easier relative to what it used to be.

 

I find that super surprising.  Though I'd also say, I'm not that confident (in my expert 5-minute investigation  ;)) that they truly have the historical data to be confident in their conclusions.

[wachtwoord]

By attempting to reduce the impact of bad luck, left wing programs result a lower standard deviation of net worth, and this is, in fact, one of their purposes.

 

Exactly. It's my main problem with it.

 

On the one hand I don't believe lowering the standard deviation of net worth reduces the impact of bad luck significantly. It mostly reduces the positive influence pof the individual for making choices that add value to the world.

 

Secondly, even if I would accept that the premise, I don't think lowering the impact of bad luck increases fairness in the world as you're basically stealing people's good luck against their will. It's their good fortune to do with as they please. Be nice and deserving and they might share it voluntarily.

 

The second one if purely subjective and we can talk for centuries and not agree :)

[Packer16]

One item that is relevant and seldom discussed is lifestyle and quality of life differences between wealthy and not so wealthy folks.  Converging this should be the goal & I think it has gotten better and will continue to converge over time because technology is making goods and services cheaper.  I am sure John Rockefeller would rather be a middle class person today than the richest man in the world in the 19th century based upon these metrics. 

 

Packer

[DooDiligence]

Its probably never been easier for people to become rich in human history.

 

I was actually curious if this was true--interpreting it as "social mobility is higher now than it used to be"--not quite the same thing, but in the same ballpark.  My reading, based on this and a couple other search results, is that post-war, there was a large surge in absolute mobility, caused by the structure of the workforce changing (people naturally moving into more valuable jobs), but the relative social mobility--the chance that two people in different classes ending up in different class destinations than the rest of their class--was small.

 

So, I interpret that as--people in general are richer on average because a tide has lifted all boats. However, the chance of them becoming rich isn't actually any easier relative to what it used to be.

 

I find that super surprising.  Though I'd also say, I'm not that confident (in my expert 5-minute investigation  ;)) that they truly have the historical data to be confident in their conclusions.

 

It'd be really cool if some underpriviledged student wrote their masters thesis on this subject & subsequently went on to become a major entrepreneur!

 

Personally; I came from a middle class family & although I'm not what I'd consider wealthy, I have carved out a very comfortable life.

 

Someone here made a comment about income equality & Lenin & I'm inclined to agree (at the risk of sounding like a douch) that equality is a dubious goal in a meritocracy.

 

The best, brightest & most driven, do what they do & create opportunities for people like me.

 

We all do what we do within our abilities & we do it to the extent that we are motivated.

 

Those who sit in front of an xbox an inordinate amount of time deserve exactly what they get.

 

I believe (wrapped in my dubious shield of white skin) that we in the developed world, all have the possibility of mobility if we are sufficiently active & possessed of a thick hide.

 

Tthere are those who climb the highest mountains & the rest of us who find our niche on the slopes.

 

We can contribute to the overall fund which sends entitlements (to assist in upward mobility & to simply assist) to those left on the floor of the valley and/or we can arm ourselves with heavy objects to drop upon the heads of those who try to snatch our stuff from below (preferably the dropped rocks won't hit those individuals who are trying to rise up & create new legitimate opportunities or participate in the system.)

 

It's a slippery slope for all...

[randomep]

 

 

Ramdon,

 

You might be 100% correct.  So might Ackman.  No one really knows.  But that wasn't my point.

 

Ackman's reaction to the the election setback (and the journalist's incredulousness) is what I see as worth noting. 

 

It's a perfect example of the old saying that "Success isn't determined by what happens, but rather how you react to what happens."

 

So you are saying he is trying to kiss up to POTUS or he is reconciling himself to a very sad event.

 

[CorpRaider]

Love Ackman's logic;  He won't screw up because he doesn't want to (anymore?). 

[randomep]

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth.

 

Exactly, word for word. Inequality is a feature not a bug.

 

Taxation and regulation can act in both directions.  Roosevelt's trust-busting made america what it is today.  And I am saying repealing Dodd-frank will cause more shit to happen like 2008.  If that happens it will bring about more inequality w/o wealth creation, which btw is fine by me personally.

 

I think it is true and  very ironic that the harder a group wants something the more likely it will get the opposite.    Middle america wants more prosperity for the working class, but Trump by all indications is going to tear down banking regulations, obamacare, and taxation which will make middle america poorer.  It reminds me of Tsipras of Greece who talked so tough but in the end made Greece a virtual slave to the EU.

 

 

 

[onyx1]

 

 

Ramdon,

 

You might be 100% correct.  So might Ackman.  No one really knows.  But that wasn't my point.

 

Ackman's reaction to the the election setback (and the journalist's incredulousness) is what I see as worth noting. 

 

It's a perfect example of the old saying that "Success isn't determined by what happens, but rather how you react to what happens."

 

So you are saying he is trying to kiss up to POTUS or he is reconciling himself to a very sad event.

 

 

I am saying people have a choice on how to deal with the turmoil going on in their heads.  Ackman chose acceptance and a positive path forward.  Others, like these,

 

 

alt=Image result for trump street protestshttp://images.indianexpress.com/2016/11/election-protests-tex_kuma759.jpg[/img]

 

 

chose to continue a fight with the monster they hallucinate Trump to be.

[CorpRaider]

Yeah, those people need to suck it up and work on getting the vote out better next time. 

[onyx1]

Yeah, those people need to suck it up and work on getting the vote out better next time.

 

They don't need to do anything.  Life offers us all a choice.

[CorpRaider]

Yeah and some/most are totally unproductive in relation to achieving your desired outcome.

[whiterose]

I don't think lowering the impact of bad luck increases fairness in the world as you're basically stealing people's good luck against their will. It's their good fortune to do with as they please. Be nice and deserving and they might share it voluntarily.

 

That is basically the definition of insurance (P&C, health etc). I wouldn't want to live in a pre-insured world, where it wasn't invented yet. All members of a specific group (villages, cities, countries, traders, car owners etc) are as a whole better off with this kind of risk-sharing on their hands. I argue it increases the overall fairness by insulating fellow humans from bad luck / acts of god. The question is how to design such a system efficiently with what parameters/incentives etc.

[wachtwoord]

I don't think lowering the impact of bad luck increases fairness in the world as you're basically stealing people's good luck against their will. It's their good fortune to do with as they please. Be nice and deserving and they might share it voluntarily.

 

That is basically the definition of insurance (P&C, health etc). I wouldn't want to live in a pre-insured world, where it wasn't invented yet. All members of a specific group (villages, cities, countries, traders, car owners etc) are as a whole better off with this kind of risk-sharing on their hands. I argue it increases the overall fairness by insulating fellow humans from bad luck / acts of god. The question is how to design such a system efficiently with what parameters/incentives etc.

 

Insuring something (or not) is a voluntary act. Mandated insurance is not (we have it with our crappy care health system)

[RichardGibbons]

Insuring something (or not) is a voluntary act. Mandated insurance is not (we have it with our crappy care health system)

 

Living in a country that forces you to buy insurance is a voluntary act also.  Your country will also force you not to rape and murder people.

 

Welcome to being a human in the civilized world. You can't do everything you like if a majority disagrees with it.  (Well, not without being killed or imprisoned.)

 

 

[wachtwoord]

Insuring something (or not) is a voluntary act. Mandated insurance is not (we have it with our crappy care health system)

 

Living in a country that forces you to buy insurance is a voluntary act also.  Your country will also force you not to rape and murder people.

 

Welcome to being a human in the civilized world. You can't do everything you like if a majority disagrees with it.  (Well, not without being killed or imprisoned.)

 

Tell me where I can go?

 

Also instead, don't the people that want the mandatory  insurance have the same option?

[CorpRaider]

Seems to me that you either have to make people have insurance, pay for it otherwise, or let the hospitals throw them out on the street to die.

[wachtwoord]

Seems to me that you either have to make people have insurance, pay for it otherwise, or let the hospitals throw them out on the street to die.

 

I agree.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

Setup:

 

Bill Ackman was not a Trump supporter.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue journalist, asks Ackman about the election.

Sorkin expects Ackman to trash Trump.

 

 

Watch Sorkins' head explode as Ackman explains why he feels Trump is good for investors, and America.

 

Ackman's response is typical of very successful people.  Not bitter.  Not angry.  Not pessimistic.  Failure & setback are fuel for further success.

 

Buffett wannabes take note:  Hillary-supporting Buffett will have a similar response to Trump's election.

Ackman is trying to make the best out of the situation he's in. With Trump in, it appears to may have a shot at making some money with Fannie/Freddie. Can't say I have a problem with that.

 

It's not as shameless as Bruce Berkowitz abandoning the Democrats before the election by funding Trump in a desperate attempt to make his Fannie/Freddie position come good. We know that this sort of backscratching is endemic in politics, but I really thought Berkowitz was supposed to be one of the good guys. For him to get his hands grubby in an attempt to save an investment just seems wrong to me.

[RichardGibbons]

Tell me where I can go?

 

Somalia. I hear Mogadishu's lovely this time of year.

 

Also instead, don't the people that want the mandatory  insurance have the same option?

 

Yep, but the majority wants the insurance.  Remember?  Civilization?

 

[rukawa]

Yep, but the majority wants the insurance.  Remember?  Civilization?

 

So civilization didn't exist before health insurance? Or is it before majority rule? I guess you don't consider China civilized then.

[onyx1]

It's not as shameless as Bruce Berkowitz abandoning the Democrats before the election by funding Trump in a desperate attempt to make his Fannie/Freddie position come good. We know that this sort of backscratching is endemic in politics, but I really thought Berkowitz was supposed to be one of the good guys. For him to get his hands grubby in an attempt to save an investment just seems wrong to me.

 

Berkowitz has been fighting a 4-year David vs Goliath battle with the Obama administration to stop the persecution of GSE shareholders.  While Berkowitz certainly stands to gain financially, he has stated publicly that as an American citizen, he is horrified with the contempt & disregard for the rule of law this Obama administration declares it is entitled to.  If allowed to stand, the theft of assets through the net worth sweep will have profoundly chilling affect on our bedrock principal of property rights.

 

That qualifies him as one of the good guys.

[John Hjorth]

Just a quite late reaction and humble reaction here to some fellow board members posts earlier in this topic.

 

Just to put some shade on the general living conditions for the European population and the spread in it - the spread is quite big - for my fellow North American board members. The spread is not an East vs West thing, it's actually more of a North vs South thing:

 

Uemployment rate in EU contountries .

 

To me, it's very concerning, as EU citizen. The unemployment rates in Grece and Spain among the young part of the population is sky high. We are talking about actually  - more or less - "the lost generation" for those countries. There will be material implications for those societies because of social inheritance for the future generation, the siblings of the "lost generation".

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

More locally [Danish]:

 

I don't remember things have been better than right now - in general - naturally partly from my own local personal perspective. [The first snow fell about a week ago - for the first time in many years, days are short, and it is cold, forget that - I could just move my butt to the south - but the Lady of the House won't - so it's just a no-go.]

 

In connection with the Financial Crisis there was a major set back here locally. It was mostly related to RE, and spread to other industries related to RE, and was a real mess.

 

I live in the third largest city of Denmark, located in the center of Denmark about 150 km west of Copenhagen, on a island called Funen. The number of habitants is about 175K.

 

I don't recall for many years to have seen a RR, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini on the streets here - a few Porsches though. Is the local society on aggregate poor then [by having no really rich citizens]? My answer: Absolutely not.

 

There are a lot of privately held Danish businesses [of which I know more than a few], that bare doing very well. And they prosper "below the radar". Their owners own and drive a high end Mercedes or BMW, or something like that, and own a reasonable, but still nice home, nothing extremely flamboyant. And yet, some of them are billionaires in DKK, if you try to value their businesses by comparing to similar listed companies.

 

It's about :

 

"Tailor stay at your last".

 

Kama Sutra, The man book, About society life:

 

"After end of education, one should use ones money, no matter if they come from gifts, warfare, trade or one have inherited them, to buy an appropriate house,and become a righteous citizen."

 

They shy the lime light.

 

They go to work every day and meet in no later than every employeé, in most cases before. And they are the l"ast man standing" just about every day, turning off the lights as the last one in office leaving.

 

It's the long haul, building their companies even stronger day by day - every day - in some cases taught by their parents, or even inherited work attitude built by three generations or more.

 

Their worst nightmare is to be forced to sell the company, based on some kind of pressure on the business, combined with telephone calls from fast talking and very agressive young MBAs or M.Sc. associates at a PE firm [Nordic Capital, EQT or what ever] calling now and then because they have read the last financials for the company, promising gold and green forests, while the owner knows what will happen is the company will be levered up with tons of debt, taken out as tax free dividends to the Cayman Islands, and the company will be either flipped or IPO'ed at a later point in time to dumb investors, who don't have a clue about what has been going on.

 

So they try to lay low - to their very best.

 

Some of those companies end up being owned by foundations - special purpose vehicles - set up for the purpose to protect the company - to avoid inheritance taxes. There are many of those here in Denmark.

 

Such an owner and operator will never hit i.e. cardboards radar, because basically, and formally, the operator does not own much, but he controls a lot - after the foundation is set up.