Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (364617)	12/28/2007 5:09:06 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576265

Lets make it easy. I'm a billionaire, you have an $80k per year income and $10k in savings. You invest $10k which makes 10% per year for your lifetime (not bad), I invest $990 million, which makes 12% per year for my lifetime (also not bad). I'm richer than you and getting wealthier at a rate faster than you are. Am I gaining wealth at your expense, or making you suffer? I don't think so, I just made better investment decisions than you did, and am reaping the benefits of those decisions. Similarly, if your $10k makes 20% per year (really well done) while my $990 million makes only 6$ per year, then you would be getting wealthier faster than I am. In this case, do you really think you are getting wealthy at my expense? Do you think the distribution of wealth should remain constant or something? ----------------------- Does it bother you that athletes, musicians, actors and other entertainers are getting a larger share of the entertainment revenue pie than they did 50 years ago, while team owner's & business people's share of that same pie has been in decline? ------------------------ And you still haven't made a persuasive case that the extremely wealthy use their increased wealth in a harmful way. Again, Gates and Buffet spending 98% of their fortunes on the public good indicate that the system that allowed them to gain massive exhorbitant wealth is good for everyone as long as the beneficiaries of that system use their wealth for the common good. You got any evidence that that is not the case?