Why we want to be rich?

[Tuulai0903]

I would like to talk about a book I have just read.

The book name is WHY WE WANT YOU TO BE RICH written by Donald Trump and Robert Koisky. It was the one of the bestselling book in USA. They are both rich and have successful business. Trump has successful real estate business, Robert is rich also we wrote the RICH DAD AND POOR DAD which is the most famous book in the world. In this book they wrote about money, their family, even their life history. I love this book because It was my first book had read in English and I did completely understood that book . Before,I tried to read in English books but it was so hard to understand and I felt boring. Maybe my major was impact to understand easily. I`m accountant also this book about money. I really like a word which mentioned in this book "New events such as investing take a test is not risky but being unprepared is big risky" . I really understood I need to hard working, I need to study more than required, I need to improve my skill thanks to this book. I hope you You guys will read it.

Have a nice day

[Prezbucky]

It's the essence of Capitalism:

1) The profit incentive creates wealth for many
2) The profit incentive creates jobs for many
3) The profit incentive creates investment opportunities for many
4) The profit incentive creates competition, as many want to start businesses
5) Competition leads to better products at lower prices (better value)

Capitalism rewards producers/success and punishes failure/losers.

It is the best (basic) economic system/philosophy: let the cream rise to the top and create for everyone else. People are free to make (or lose) money, and freedom is the king of political sentiments.

Loosely (but necessarily...) regulated Capitalism (AKA Free Enterprise) is what made the United States so successful. You don't reward failure... you reward success. Hopefully Obama will stop his push to reverse our economic freedom.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Tuulai0903]

Hi, Prezbucky
I think Your response is brief and clearly also it contained about real capitalism concepts.

But why did you wrote "Hopefully Obama will stop his push to reverse our economic freedom". Do You think Obama is using bad method to manage USA`s economic.
Please more precise about your opinion. It is interesting to read about that.
......................................................................................................

If I love what am I doing, I will get success. BUT LOVE IS NOT EASY.

[Prezbucky]

I'm of the opinion that increased regulations and taxes on businesses can lead to fewer new businesses, lost jobs at existing business, etc.

It's a fine line: there has to be some regulation to protect consumers from predatory businesses and lenders. On the other hand, if you crack down too hard on them, they may simply take their ball and go home.

I think obama and congress have reacted too strongly to the recent downturn and hope the changes don't end up in fewer new enterprises, lost jobs and businesses ceasing operations.

They may also pass the costs of these new regulations on to consumers -- higher prices.

It takes two to make a poor deal, as in the real estate mess: a lender offering a person a mortgage he or she will struggle to repay... and a person accepting that same mortgage. I think too much of the blame has been placed on the former and not enough on the latter.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Political Lurker]

[Our Tort System]

[Prezbucky]

Lurker,

Yeah, what a trip that was. I heard today that the execs of those companies were given (in some cases) $10 million bonuses with that public money. That money should be going exclusively to those companies as a whole. I'm generally not in favor of taking money from one person and giving it to another person (or entity), for that is the essence of socialism. But in this case we couldn't let the banks fail. If it were just one or two banks, well -- that's too bad, but in a free market, some firms succeed while others fail.

OTS
I'm more in favor of a flat tax. I think raising taxes on some while sparing others has two main negative consequences:

1) You send a message that it's okay to start a business, but not okay to kick butt. (hehe)
2) Regardless of how big the company is, increased taxes means less money in the company's coffers. And that means jobs are cut (hurting workers), or prices go up (hurting consumers), or investments suffer, or R&D at the company suffers and quality suffers... etc. Now -- if the company has a good tax shield, then yeah, go ahead and tax the hell outta them. hehe
I'm just generally against punishing success. Smaller companies can stay small if they want to... or they can aspire to globalization. If you spend years climbing a mountain, should you be rewarded by being bonked on the head when you reach the top? I think we should respect the power of the profit incentive.

Have a good weekend folks!
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Prezbucky]

Well, okay -- maybe tax the biggest corps a little more -- maybe 3-5% more.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee.

[Political Lurker]

Basically the Fed reserve just prints money after the Gov creates bonds - at the end of the day its just loads of paper - but they called it "Quantitive easing" - how pretentious can you get with a name??

Anyway I was told by some wise guy (doesn't mean its true) the Brazilians weren't too impressed by this and when the US went to pay them back on a massive debt - they refused to accept dollars and eventually took RICE instead which supposedly meant a sharp rise in the price of Rice in the US

The Chinese also refused to accept dollars on a large debt and apparently eventually agreed (they asked for gold) to accept steel.....

Behold the "Scrappage Scheme" were cars are crunched up and put on ships to China.

The whole system is primed to go bust every dozen years or so - then the pesky super rich come in again and buy everything up for almost nothing - Then after a few years they start it all over again.
_________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

[Jamie (K)]

Large corporations don't suffer from higher taxes, because the money they pay their taxes with comes from the consumers. Raise taxes very high on corporations, and you simply make their products more expensive for ordinary people. So really, whether you tax people or corporations, it always comes out of the people's pockets. Nonetheless, high corporate taxes damage the economy by causing inflation and making people poorer.

My attitude toward the US bank bailouts is "you break it, you bought it". The US government ruined a lot of banks by requiring them to make loans to people who obviously could not pay them back. In at least one case, a bank was even forced to make loans to homeless people! If the banks did not provide these bad loans, they would be severely penalized by the government and possibly sued by both the government and by activist groups. This is the main thing that caused the crash in the US. That locked up credit, which made it hard for people to buy cars, and that meant the US car companies had trouble surviving also. Normally I don't believe in corporate bailouts, but in this case the government caused the damage, so they were morally responsible for fixing it.

The main problem is that people with Marxism-tinged thinking, similar to Obama's, imagine that banks and rich people are endless sources of money. They think you can place unlimited taxes on them and force unlimited money out of them in other ways, and that the well will never dry up. Then when the well does dry up and the system crashes, they're surprised. The Bush administration predicted the problem that caused the crash, and they tried to get Congress to make reforms to prevent it, but the main Democrats insisted the system was healthy, and they refused to take any action.

Another thing about capitalism: Even though a lot of people in the West scream that large corporations are evil, under capitalism it ranges from difficult to impossible to build a business -- or to stay in business for a long time -- if you lie, cheat people or don't keep your promises. The reason is that if you do, customers don't come back a second time, and they tell all their friends to stay away from you also.

I witnessed this on a small scale when I lived in Eastern Europe when it was reforming away from communism. In my town, there would often be two competing business people. One would be very honest and provide very good service, and the other one would suffer from the communist delusion that capitalism is like a jungle with animals eating each other. The honest businessman would get richer and richer, and his business would get grow, because customers returned again and again and brought friends with them. Meanwhile the dishonest businessman's enterprise would never improve, because few people did business with him more than once. He would imagine that the honest businessman has some special secret method of cheating people that made him successful, and he imagined that he needed to learn the honest businessman's cheating technique. This guy would stay at the bottom of the ladder, however, because he never realized that honesty brings you more business than cheating does.

I saw that in quite a number of different businesses.