[NT] Why does so many people fail to get rich?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Come on, as a fellow ENTP, you should know that we make our best points without ever coming up with a direct statement.

Did Kuwait ever industrialize in a complete sense? Have they developed any sort of industrialized trade beyond that of resource extraction? Is there any sort of manufacturing done in Kuwait? Those are the more important questions.

They have to some degree, and their wealth is the cause of that. However the government owns all of the oil. I tend to think once their oil runs out, that their prosperity will plummet. Granted I think they'll do better than the other oil countries in the Middle East, because they are doing better right now. But they rely too much on oil for their continued prosperity.

However consider Japan. This is a country that is doing extremely well economically in spite of having relatively few resources compared to it's population size. Japan prospers because they have a capitalist economy. They import, manufacture, then export. (And really nowadays they just build factories in other countries.) They don't need native resources (other than human resources) because they can make money buying other people's resources. The key is how the economy works rather than just having a lot of native resources.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Mmh, failed to get rich... I don't really know.


You know... I'm working on my second million.

 

[INTJ123]

They have to some degree, and their wealth is the cause of that. However the government owns all of the oil. I tend to think once their oil runs out, that their prosperity will plummet. Granted I think they'll do better than the other oil countries in the Middle East, because they are doing better right now. But they rely too much on oil for their continued prosperity.

However consider Japan. This is a country that is doing extremely well economically in spite of having relatively few resources compared to it's population size. Japan prospers because they have a capitalist economy. They import, manufacture, then export. (And really nowadays they just build factories in other countries.) They don't need native resources (other than human resources) because they can make money buying other people's resources. The key is how the economy works rather than just having a lot of native resources.

Have you forgotten their history, I think the only reason they are at where they are now is because the united states helps them. I'm sure that they aquired much wealth in times of war too, they enslaved my native country. Yea you only hear about the JEWS, but what about the Armenians or Koreans?

There are so many factors that can affect a country's wealth you can't just talk economics and expect that to tell the whole story. There's alot of killing and looting involved too in history. It's said they took the gold right off the jew's teeth after killing them.

 

[Provoker]

Explain this? How is harder one works relate to how much money one earns?

Ok. Let's assume that Joe Somebody wants to be wealthy and prosperous. Joe Somebody gets a job and works very hard at that job. However, Joe finds that the more he works, the more profit he generates for Bob Capitalist. Accordingly, Joe somebody will slave away and (unless he's an exception to the rule) will never be able to match Bob Capitalist in monetary status. Why? There are several reasons but the main one has to do with exploitation. Namely, not paying workers the full value of their labor. This is clearly evident in Third World countries where peasants work for peanuts and the harder they work the more wealth they generate to the landlords and capitalists. And thus it is an illusion that they buy into that if they work hard enough they will end up like Bob Capitalist. Again, it does happen but is an exception rather than rule. Yet it's also evident states like the United States as well, where workers are not compensated for the full value of their work. The difference between the real value of labor and what the worker is actually paid is also taken by the Bob Capitalist. On the other hand, if workers did receive the full value of their labor it would mean less money in the Bob Capitalist's pocket. It's class warfare. The property owning class has been ahead for a long time, especially in the US, and this explains why so many workers are at the wrath of capitalists. Furthermore, Antonio Gramsci write extensively about cultural hegemony in his Prison Notes. In essence, Gramsci was curious at the time he wrote as to why there haden't been a socialist revolution as Marx predicted. He claimed it was because of cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony refers to the phenomenon whereby the values of the bourgeoise are absorbed by the prolitariat. However, these values go directly against their class interest and serve to merely perpetuate the status quo. As such, the American bourgoise dream is merely a piece of propaganda whch serves the property class interest, and when followed by the prolitariat, serves to merely reinforce the status quo rather than change it.

 

[Provoker]

I don't make much distinction between socialist democracies and capitalist democracies.

Are you serious? That is tantamount to saying I don't make a distinction between communism and facism or between liberalism and idealism. Well, you shouldn't be so proud about your ignorance--in addition to being a poor scholar that suggests you lack character as well. There are big distinctions to be sure but that is besides the point of this thread. Do some reading. I can recommend a pethora of scholars that could illuminate the distinctions for you if you care to learn: Noam Chomsky, Stephen F. Cohen, Joseph Stiglitz, Howard Zinn to name just a few.

 

[INTJ123]

Ok. Let's assume that Joe Somebody wants to be wealthy and prosperous. Joe Somebody gets a job and works very hard at that job. However, Joe finds that the more he works, the more profit he generates for Bob Capitalist. Accordingly, Joe somebody will slave away and (unless he's an exception to the rule) will never be able to match Bob Capitalist in monetary status. Why? There are several reasons but the main one has to do with exploitation. Namely, not paying workers the full value of their labor. This is clearly evident in Third World countries where peasants work for peanuts and the harder they work the more wealth they generate to the landlords and capitalists. And thus it is an illusion that they buy into that if they work hard enough they will end up like Bob Capitalist. Again, it does happen but is an exception rather than rule. Yet it's also evident states like the United States as well, where workers are not compensated for the full value of their work. The difference between the real value of labor and what the worker is actually paid is also taken by the Bob Capitalist. On the other hand, if workers did receive the full value of their labor it would mean less money in the Bob Capitalist's pocket. It's class warfare. The property owning class has been ahead for a long time, especially in the US, and this explains why so many workers are at the wrath of capitalists. Furthermore, Antonio Gramsci write extensively about cultural hegemony in his Prison Notes. In essence, Gramsci was curious at the time he wrote as to why there haden't been a socialist revolution as Marx predicted. He claimed it was because of cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony refers to the phenomenon whereby the values of the bourgeoise are absorbed by the prolitariat. However, these values go directly against their class interest and serve to merely perpetuate the status quo. As such, the American bourgoise dream is merely a piece of propaganda whch serves the property class interest, and when followed by the prolitariat, serves to merely reinforce the status quo rather than change it.

That was a long read, but I'd rather just sum it up like this.
They're fkin enslaving us, and many are fkin enslaving themselves. SLAVES!!

 

[BallentineChen]

Explain

If capitalism favor self interest and equal opportunity for all, why does so many people fail to get rich?

I'd say because there's a discrepancy between the theory and reality, in an ideal capitalist society non-profits would not exist. In the US, non-profits do not redistribute their profits to shareholders, they are retained in the organization as unrestricted funds for future use. While it's in the interest of non-profits to be financially sound, their funds are used for purposes other than generating a monetary return. It's not that capitalism doesn't work, it's that it only captures a part of the story.

 

[INTJ123]

And WTF is with the great seal on the $1 bill, it's in fkin latin talkin about the new order of the ages, with some eyeball as the last step of a 13 layer pyramid, with a roman numeral date on the base. And why does almost every fkin US president have blood relations to the royal british family? I would even look into Obama that foo aint black, he's half white and acts white.

And Arnold Swchartz is our governor? Who the fk voted for some meat head to run California?

We seem to be moving backwards in time, our leaders are becoming outrageously idiotic. Wouldn't you want leaders to get smarter?

 

[Valuable_Money]

Explain

If capitalism favor self interest and equal opportunity for all, why does so many people fail to get rich?

Because of bad grammer

 

[INTJ123]

Because of bad grammer

Because of bad spelling of GRAMMAR. What a freggin hypocrite. Before you check others for correctness in their little insignificant mistakes, check your own.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Because when you start from the bottom, wealth comes at a price.

The types of people that get wealthy are rarely the ones that enjoy that wealth.

 

[onemoretime]

They have to some degree, and their wealth is the cause of that. However the government owns all of the oil. I tend to think once their oil runs out, that their prosperity will plummet. Granted I think they'll do better than the other oil countries in the Middle East, because they are doing better right now. But they rely too much on oil for their continued prosperity.

However consider Japan. This is a country that is doing extremely well economically in spite of having relatively few resources compared to it's population size. Japan prospers because they have a capitalist economy. They import, manufacture, then export. (And really nowadays they just build factories in other countries.) They don't need native resources (other than human resources) because they can make money buying other people's resources. The key is how the economy works rather than just having a lot of native resources.

Yes, a non-resource intensive country can become quite wealthy based on secondary industry, such as manufacturing, but I fail to see where capitalism comes into play (the Scandinavian countries did much the same as far as shipbuilding and heavy industry with government-owned capacity).

Even then, Japan is an interesting case so far as in the transition from a secondary (manufacturing) economy to a primarily tertiary one (services and finance), they hit their Lost Decade of deflationary depression, from which they still have not recovered. This came from both overcapacity (less money chasing more goods) and a credit bubble that popped at the wrong time - the US was saved from a similar fate by the internet boom in the 1990s, but headed in that direction after the crash of 2001, only to be offset by the housing bubble.

 

[Not_Me]

At the individual level, the best way to stay poor is to allow yourself to be driven by your impulses rather than to make longer term goals.

 

[yenom]

Ok. Let's assume that Joe Somebody wants to be wealthy and prosperous. Joe Somebody gets a job and works very hard at that job. However, Joe finds that the more he works, the more profit he generates for Bob Capitalist. Accordingly, Joe somebody will slave away and (unless he's an exception to the rule) will never be able to match Bob Capitalist in monetary status. Why? There are several reasons but the main one has to do with exploitation. Namely, not paying workers the full value of their labor. This is clearly evident in Third World countries where peasants work for peanuts and the harder they work the more wealth they generate to the landlords and capitalists. And thus it is an illusion that they buy into that if they work hard enough they will end up like Bob Capitalist. Again, it does happen but is an exception rather than rule. Yet it's also evident states like the United States as well, where workers are not compensated for the full value of their work. The difference between the real value of labor and what the worker is actually paid is also taken by the Bob Capitalist. On the other hand, if workers did receive the full value of their labor it would mean less money in the Bob Capitalist's pocket. It's class warfare. The property owning class has been ahead for a long time, especially in the US, and this explains why so many workers are at the wrath of capitalists. Furthermore, Antonio Gramsci write extensively about cultural hegemony in his Prison Notes. In essence, Gramsci was curious at the time he wrote as to why there haden't been a socialist revolution as Marx predicted. He claimed it was because of cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony refers to the phenomenon whereby the values of the bourgeoise are absorbed by the prolitariat. However, these values go directly against their class interest and serve to merely perpetuate the status quo. As such, the American bourgoise dream is merely a piece of propaganda whch serves the property class interest, and when followed by the prolitariat, serves to merely reinforce the status quo rather than change it.

I agree that exploitation does play a part.
But the most importnat thing is that in order to profit from other people's work, you have to know what kind of work generates money.
A capitalist knows what kind of work will generate money for his company, whereareas a worker does not because he does not. That is the core difference. Otherwise the worker would have become a capitalist himself and start his own company.

There are also labor costs. The more labor you employ, the higher the costs, and you have to ensure that the gain or enterprise of the business far outwieghts the lavor costs.

 

[TSDesigner]

People fail to become rich because they have the wrong mental attitudes and beliefs. They also have a poor self image. You can't become rich if you think of yourself as a poor person, or if you think you don't deserve to, or if you think money is evil. Most people are negative thinkers. Negative thinking keeps you down. Also you need to have a burning desire to become rich. Having a mild wish won't do it. It helps to be smart, but there are ways to make a lot of money without being smart. There are lots of books and CD's which give you advice on increasing your wealth. Brian Tracy is the best success guru. If you follow all of his advice, you'll be much more successful. I've been studying self help and success advice for a few years. I'm not rich yet, but I'm making a lot more money than I used to. I'm doing my own online business that I like instead of working in crappy jobs that I hate. My income growth potential is unlimited. The more I work on my business, the more my income grows. I also have passive income from my online business, which means even if I goof off, I still make money every day. It's like having my own money tree. Money does grow on trees for me! It beats the hell out of doing a job you hate.

 

[wastrd]

Explain

If capitalism favor self interest and equal opportunity for all, why does so many people fail to get rich?

Because that's not what capitalism is at all.

 

[entropie]

 

[yenom]

As much as I don't really like entjs, he did have a point. Natural Resources only occur naturally, and if we comsume it faster than it is produced in nature, then it is very limited. And until we start using magnetic propulsion for space flight, it won't be cost effective to go out there to mine resources.

All FDG does is repeat what he learns from economic books. Its is like talking to a parrot.

If he really believes real life economics works like the theories in economic books, than he is nothing but a fool.

 

[Frank]

I can tell you one thing that I have seen so far that is a barrier to becoming rich. In the industry that I am involved in in order to own the company there is a vast amount of knowledge one must absorb to create a company legally. Beside all of the tax laws, employer rules and regs., environmental laws etc... One must be osha compliant, have a keen understanding of the science of the industry, be on top of mountains of paperwork and documentation to attempt to keep your company safe from lawsuits, be able to sell your services to the clients, find ways to compete with the "big boys" who almost have an unlimited budget. The list really goes on and on. I could work 24 hrs/day just on the legal/compliance side of things and still never take a day off. Of course it would be nice to delegate alot of the work but when your just starting out it is not really feasible.
Reasons like above are a big reason why many fail to get rich. It is not because they lack the intelligence or could not figure out how to do it. Most people just prefer, in the end, to work for someone else, let them live, eat and breathe the company and at the end of the day go home at a reasonable hour with enough pay to live comfortably.

 

[EcK]

On the bright side, they succeed at being poor.

Which's always something.
The glass is half full, damn it.


(to answer the op, have a look at a bell curve while thinking about offer vs demand and scarcity.)