ParticleMan Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 I think that "rich" is defined by net assets rather than income. I go a step further and exclude housing and subtract 2x debt when measuring net assets. How do you value an asset? (this is why the question is broken - there's no reliable data on wealth, because only flows may be accurately priced, and even then only as a relative spread above the risk free rate; a stock's value is purely in the eye of the beer holder; further, if you construct a relative measure based - wholly, or no - on flow metrics, it's somewhat hypocritical to then discount both the state's grab at that same flow, as well as the outflows necessary to earn it in the first instance; the question in fact is oxymoronical, and debating it irrational) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 +1 To be brutally honest, after 30 years working after being born in the UK you don't have much excuse for not being a millionaire except illness, lazyness, stupidity or simply not being that greedy/interested in money Given council houses at knock down prices, with gardens to sell off to developers. Most i dont think want to be millionaires though. A lifetime of f*cking and drinking and watching the footy isnt so bad when the govt pays your way. Beats getting up in the morning, anyway. It amazes me that people watch the apprentice and say 'i want that' Spending your days with pond life that would sell their own grandmother to get a bit richer and having that fugly fraud 'Sir' alan Sugar breathing down your neck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Nope I think thats a pretty accurate picture of the extremely wealthy, mostly they were born advantaged over the average Mainly they were lucky enough to be born white in the 20th century in a democratic country, 75% of the world's population didn't have that advantage Yep. I recall a meeting we had with some investors at a startup I worked for. All of them were "self made." Except over lunch it became apparent that self made meant dad had lent them 40k (in the 1970s) and they had a great opportunity that arose from one of his contacts, their best friend from Winchester's father etc. etc. etc. Becoming wealthy requires skill and hard graft, but it also requires a lot of luck and opportunity. Once people are married with kids and a sizeable mortgage there is almost zero chance - they can't take the risks and they don't have the energy. Even having free housing (e.g. flat bought by a parent) provides an incredible amount of freedom and felxibility to take risks not available to people who have to scrounge £800 a month in rent. Furthermore, being brought up in a successful business household gives young entrepenuers a huge headstart in many ways. Having said that, one of my cousins is completely self made, but boy did he work hard and he had some luck. Without the latter the hard work would have meant nothing. Edited December 23, 2010 by Tiger Woods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 There is no such thing as a trickle down effect. Only trickle up caused by anti competitive and monopolistic behaviour. A perfect market with perfect knowledge would in theory result in producers making a reasonable profit. Super profits are caused my imperfect market knowlege and market imbalance. The rich strive to imbalance and control markets even to the extent of capturing regulators and influencing politicians. You do see efficient markets in PC's and flat screens, but the margins are small. then of course at the other end of the scale we have bankstering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babesagainstmachines Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Without the bank, you cannot execute your plan at all. That's completely irrelevant as to whether there is a trickle up or down effect. There are alternatives to a government-backed monopoly on currency creation. Are you a banker, perchance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.