Is all wealth truly "earned"?

[Nym90]

Agree is liberal, disagree is conservative.

[opebo]

Even asking the question is leftist.  Of course it is none of your business how someone else got their money. Otherwise what is the meaning of ownership?

That said, unearned money is much sweeter than earned.

[Aegir]

Agree

[The Duke]

Agree, how do you think crdit card comapnies make their cash?  By building a better mousetrap?

[12th Doctor]

Disagree.  Agreeing, I think, shows a fundamental lack of understanding for how society and the economy acctually work.

[John Dibble]

'Manipulating' money to make more of it takes intelligence, time, and effort - how is that not earning it? The people who make money will spend some of it, thusly contributing to the economy, which is part of society. So, therefore I disagree with the statement.

[Nym90]

'Manipulating' money to make more of it takes intelligence, time, and effort - how is that not earning it? The people who make money will spend some of it, thusly contributing to the economy, which is part of society. So, therefore I disagree with the statement.

By that logic, robbing banks is a perfectly legitimate business, too. A successful bank robbery certainly takes intelligence, time, and effort, and they usually spend the money and pump it back into the economy.

To answer your question, it's not "earning" it if you are contributing nothing to society. It's always bad for the economy when people are able to get money for producing nothing of value, whether that be through social welfare, crime, or any other means.

The economy will always be most productive when the compensation that people receive for their work is in direct proportion with the amount of value they create for society through their work. The fundamental problem with a completely free market capitalistic economy is that the more money you have, the easier it is to make money. You don't have to be as intelligent, as creative, or as hard working as someone who is poor. So such a society places more value on past accomplishments (which may not even be yours; perhaps hard work, ingenuity, or creativeness that may have occured generations ago within your family) than it does on present day accomplishments. I don't begrudge the rich their wealth, and I believe that they have earned the right to remain rich without having to continue to work hard or be extremely smart; it is appropriate to have a certain degree of reward for past accomplishments, but I don't feel it is right that rich people can continue to get even wealthier and wealthier without the value that they are adding to society being of equal proportion to the amount of money that they earn.

[Mikem]

By that logic, robbing banks is a perfectly legitimate business, too. A successful bank robbery certainly takes intelligence, time, and effort, and they usually spend the money and pump it back into the economy.

To answer your question, it's not "earning" it if you are contributing nothing to society. It's always bad for the economy when people are able to get money for producing nothing of value, whether that be through social welfare, crime, or any other means.

The economy will always be most productive when the compensation that people receive for their work is in direct proportion with the amount of value they create for society through their work. The fundamental problem with a completely free market capitalistic economy is that the more money you have, the easier it is to make money. You don't have to be as intelligent, as creative, or as hard working as someone who is poor. So such a society places more value on past accomplishments (which may not even be yours; perhaps hard work, ingenuity, or creativeness that may have occured generations ago within your family) than it does on present day accomplishments. I don't begrudge the rich their wealth, and I believe that they have earned the right to remain rich without having to continue to work hard or be extremely smart; it is appropriate to have a certain degree of reward for past accomplishments, but I don't feel it is right that rich people can continue to get even wealthier and wealthier without the value that they are adding to society being of equal proportion to the amount of money that they earn.

Manipulating money most certainly does contribute to society.  Perhaps it does not take much (physical) effort to invest money, but were it not for all the investments, I am quite sure that none of us would own a home.  Investors keep liquidity in the economy and allow growth through debt financing.  Were it not for these investors, companies and individuals would have to front cash for everything.  It would be very difficult to grow in such an environment, and many good businesses and ideas would go unfilfilled because of lack of funds.  And for those of us that own homes, investors are DIRECTLY responsible for your ability to purchase that property, unless of course you paid cash and have no mortgage.  Securities are sold by the government backed mortgage companies such as Fannie and Freddie, if there were no buyers because there was no profit in it, then there would be no liquidity left in the market, and not nearly as many people could purchase real estate.  Now does all this financial "manipulation" not benefit society?  Of course it does, that is why it pays well.  The market would not pay for nothing, if there was no utility in the action it would not garner a profit.  I believe that this financial side of the market is just as important as the labor side, both are needed for our economy and society to function properly.  I think it is easy for blue collar workers to scoff at how fruitless it is to sit on money and live off interest, but try to imagine our society without it.

[John Dibble]

'Manipulating' money to make more of it takes intelligence, time, and effort - how is that not earning it? The people who make money will spend some of it, thusly contributing to the economy, which is part of society. So, therefore I disagree with the statement.

By that logic, robbing banks is a perfectly legitimate business, too. A successful bank robbery certainly takes intelligence, time, and effort, and they usually spend the money and pump it back into the economy.

Mikem responded to the rest pretty well, but I have to comment on this. You can't 'earn' something by stealing it, otherwise why would we sieze stolen goods? No, you can only earn something if you do it with your own resources - the bank does not belong to you, you can't just take the money, simply because IT IS NOT YOURS. If you manipulate money to gain more money, nobody disputes that that money belongs to you. If you rob a bank you take other people's money, most everyone will dispute that that money belongs to you. I didn't include robbery in the original logic since I though people would have enough common sense to assume that it applied only to legally earning it, and I'm sure you know that, so don't twist the logic to mean something that it is not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Money is the root of all evil

[A18]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

[Nym90]

'Manipulating' money to make more of it takes intelligence, time, and effort - how is that not earning it? The people who make money will spend some of it, thusly contributing to the economy, which is part of society. So, therefore I disagree with the statement.

By that logic, robbing banks is a perfectly legitimate business, too. A successful bank robbery certainly takes intelligence, time, and effort, and they usually spend the money and pump it back into the economy.

Mikem responded to the rest pretty well, but I have to comment on this. You can't 'earn' something by stealing it, otherwise why would we sieze stolen goods? No, you can only earn something if you do it with your own resources - the bank does not belong to you, you can't just take the money, simply because IT IS NOT YOURS. If you manipulate money to gain more money, nobody disputes that that money belongs to you. If you rob a bank you take other people's money, most everyone will dispute that that money belongs to you. I didn't include robbery in the original logic since I though people would have enough common sense to assume that it applied only to legally earning it, and I'm sure you know that, so don't twist the logic to mean something that it is not.

I know, and I overstated my case for dramatic effect, I really don't think you support that.

I still feel that my point stands, however. I wouldn't go so far as to say that wealthy people who earn money strictly from investments contribute nothing, but I feel that the compensation that they get is still far out of proportion to the value that they contribute. I did acknowledge that I felt that they deserved to remain rich, but I still feel that it's fair that they should pay a higher rate of taxes to compensate for it.

[Nym90]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Do you think of yourself as a Christian?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

At least 90%
Greed is the cause of about 100%... in some way

[John Dibble]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

At least 90%
Greed is the cause of about 100%... in some way

Greed existed before money did. Eliminate money and greed will still exist.

[Mikem]

... but I still feel that it's fair that they should pay a higher rate of taxes to compensate for it.

I could agree with this, if and only if the risks of investment could be offset by writing off losses for tax purposes to lower income.  This would level the playing field since the financial gain from labor has no innherent risk.  Unless your boss plays craps withthe payroll money

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

It depends on what you classify as evil, but I can agree with that, not all evil is caused by greed, some is simply because of the volatility of the human emotional and psychological state.  I don't think most serial killers or rapists do their evil for financial gain, they are simply psychotic.

[John Dibble]

On Greed - greed isn't always bad, it often is a driving force that pushes society forward. Lots of our technology that makes our lives easier was made by people who wanted to make their own lives better by making lots of money.

[badnarikin04]

John...

Can you please vote in the fantasy election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

At least 90%
Greed is the cause of about 100%... in some way

Greed existed before money did. Eliminate money and greed will still exist.

I'm not suggesting eliminating money... it can't be done. People will barter (which is all money *is* when you think about it).

[opebo]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

At least 90%
Greed is the cause of about 100%... in some way

Greed existed before money did. Eliminate money and greed will still exist.

I'm not suggesting eliminating money... it can't be done. People will barter (which is all money *is* when you think about it).

So bartering is evil?!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Money is the root of all evil

This is blind, moronic statement.

Personally I would change it to say "Love of money is the root of the majority of evil."

At least 90%
Greed is the cause of about 100%... in some way

Greed existed before money did. Eliminate money and greed will still exist.

I'm not suggesting eliminating money... it can't be done. People will barter (which is all money *is* when you think about it).

So bartering is evil?!

The key word is ROOT

[A18]

The love of money is the root of all evil. That's a world away from MONEY being the root of all evil, which is one of the dumbest things I've heard in my life.

[JohnFKennedy]

Money = The Root of All Evil

Time = Money

Time = Distance/Speed

Therefore (Distance/Speed)^2 = Evil

This concludes today's maths lesson.....

On the question, Agree/Disagree, slightly ambivalent.

[John Dibble]

Money = The Root of All Evil

Time = Money

Time = Distance/Speed

Therefore (Distance/Speed)^2 = Evil

This concludes today's maths lesson.....

On the question, Agree/Disagree, slightly ambivalent.

Money = the root of all evil
Time = Money
Girls take time and money, so Girls = time x money
Therefore Girls = root of evil^2
Therefore Girls = evil