Chef Jim Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Yet you trivialize the infrastructure that was set up in order for individuals to thrive by comparing them to drug addicts and deposits in a bank account. This thread wouldn't even exist if half the people around here wouldn't steadfastly refuse to admit to the obvious truth inbedded in your quote. Instead of meaningful conversations about the size and scope of government, we continue to have nonsense 'debates' about whether the government even has the authority to tax people. And yes because all us conservatives say the government doesn't have the right to tax.
3rdnlng Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Only someone still had to purchase said widget. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Obviously there has to be other people involved. A person isn't going to invent something, produce it and buy it from themselves. This thread seems to have people on one side that believe that yes, you can be a "self made man", while the other side sort of belittles that and wants to credit most everyone for one person's success. I guess I am just not a big believer in "it takes a Village People" but each to his own.
Booster4324 Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 And he also had to find a reliable source of raw mateials and components from which to assemble his finished product Still doesn't back up what the what the congress critter was implying, that rich people need to give more money to the gubmint I am not arguing that point.
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Only someone still had to purchase said widget. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Thus establishing that the central point of "nobody got rich on their own" is "people get rich exploiting the consumer".
/dev/null Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Thus establishing that the central point of "nobody got rich on their own" is "people get rich exploiting the consumer". Damn that Steve Jobs for getting rich by forcing people to buy iPads
Rob's House Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 More asshattery. More nonsense Again: The question is not whether wealthy people have money or how they got it. The question is: If we raise marginal income tax rates, do we increase or decrease revenues in the long run? This assumes maximizing government revenue is the ultimate end.
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2011 Posted September 25, 2011 Damn that Steve Jobs for getting rich by forcing people to buy iPads "Exploiting" != "forcing". And...yeah, I'll say Apple's "you bought our product, we !@#$in' own you, bitches" attitude exploits the consumer.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Obviously there has to be other people involved. A person isn't going to invent something, produce it and buy it from themselves. This thread seems to have people on one side that believe that yes, you can be a "self made man", while the other side sort of belittles that and wants to credit most everyone for one person's success. I guess I am just not a big believer in "it takes a Village People" but each to his own. youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08 The statement was made that nobody got rich in this country on their own is not true, and of the examples presented the statement held up. I'm still waiting for the example that disproves the statement. Naming a money manager who had a rich father that helped him and an inventor that had to have financial backing to become rich just don't cut the mustard. The one statement that you made, Obviously there has to be other people involved, backs up my refutation, and regardless of intention, Edison did in fact have help.
DC Tom Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 The statement was made that nobody got rich in this country on their own is not true, and of the examples presented the statement held up. I'm still waiting for the example that disproves the statement. Naming a money manager who had a rich father that helped him and an inventor that had to have financial backing to become rich just don't cut the mustard. The one statement that you made, Obviously there has to be other people involved, backs up my refutation, and regardless of intention, Edison did in fact have help. So pretty much the only way to get rich "on your own" is to find a big-ass nugget of gold laying out on the ground (can't be in a mine, because you'd have to dig for it...and you'd have to buy the shovel from someone, unless you make your own). Then you'd be rich "on your own"... ...except that you're not rich until you SELL the gold to someone else. So basically, there's no discussing it with you, because you believe that "on your own" doesn't exist as a concept.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 g The statement was made that nobody got rich in this country on their own is not true, and of the examples presented the statement held up. I'm still waiting for the example that disproves the statement. Naming a money manager who had a rich father that helped him and an inventor that had to have financial backing to become rich just don't cut the mustard. The one statement that you made, Obviously there has to be other people involved, backs up my refutation, and regardless of intention, Edison did in fact have help. If you consider "help" convincing investors they will personally profit from backing your venture yeah that's help. Problem is your definition of "help" is completely false. If I buy stock in Microsoft am I looking to "help" Bill Gates? Of course not. I am looking to make money from his ideas and his company. Really,your logic defies any common sense. Is not all wealth generated from convicing people to give you money in exchange for something they want?
Recommended Posts