Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 450SEL 6.9 I think, even in America, the rich get richer. The rich have access to capital, expertise and most of all, something the Chinese calls guanxi (connections). Given those odds, I'd be surprised if the rich don't get richer. Look at the Forbes list of World Billionaires and Richest People in America. The minimum net worth to get on that list goes up every year.
If you had millions of investable money, you can invest in venture capital funds and have the smartest managers handle your money. The VC firm that backed Youtube for something like $10 million, in return for a reputed 30% stake, could get back $500 million for less than two year's work. Youtube was bought by Google for a bubble price, $1.6 billion US. Now how would a poor man have his money invested in one of those sweetheart deals? In fact, how would a poor man even have any discretionary money to invest?
|
I think you are overlooking the principle behind my statement. The rich are indeed getting richer, but so are the poor people, and the middle class. Therefore, it is not entirely true that the rich are getting richer. Relative to the poor, and the middle class, they are proportionately getting richer.
I understand that you are trying to relate maybe something you read recently in an article in reference to the youtube and Google transaction, but that really does not pertain to this conversation. If you are going to talk about a corporation as an ENTITY and how it ventures into business transactions that is a different story. However, we are talking about the 'rich' which is a collective body of individuals. Knowing this, you can see that we have to attack, discuss, or explain the body or the individual. The individuals may be part of a business, but that is a separate story.
Proportionately, the rich are not getting richer in relation to the poor and the middle class. There is an upward trend, which is what I attempted to describe.
In addition to this, I was proposing that the 'rich' are balancing out. Before there was a smaller group that were the 'rich' and they were wealthy. However, in the todays world the group has grown, and so has the balance. You will not see several major billionares that are so powerful, but rather, just a few. If you do not understand what I mean by balancing out, then I will further clarify this upon request.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 450SEL 6.9
Athletes get paid $20 million US for endorsements. Actors made that every movie. A celebrity can make mega millions, more in one year than an average man makes in a few lifetimes! The West is celebrity obsessed, oil obsessed and wealth obsessed. How can the rich not get more rich under such favourable circumstances? How can the poor not become more poor and/or more dead?
|
Asserting this notion is incorrect. First, athletes make this kind of money here and there. They are not making this money consistently.The minute they are injured, fired, or are to old to play they are done. Also, society goes through phases where they admire a particular celebrity or athlete. In the end, this only contributes to a small amount of the celebrities and/or atheletes net worth.
You do not see that many, if any at all, celebrities/atheletes on forbes list do you? They are being paid this amount for a year or two, but not for the rest of their life. Rich people have incomes that either grow exponentially or stay consistent. That is the difference between your assumption and reality. Essentially you are assuming that just because a particular celeb/athelete gets paid 20 million for product, commercial, or whatever that they are rich. They are, but not part of that MEGA-group which is what I am referring to. In the end they may fall back into the upper middles class.