Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » "Self-Made"?? Yeah. Right.

Author Message
Guest
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:58 am
 
Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html

Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:

1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources

4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive

10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership

14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege

17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges


Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk
of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.

-- Roy L
 
Guest
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:26 pm
 
On Oct 6, 12:58 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
[quote:5322ff39e3]Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_r...

Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:

1 Tim Blixseth: timberland, real estate
-- i.e., pure landowner privilege
Notice Blixseth's slightly too revealing response to Q 15:
Say you have $100,000 to invest: What do you do with it?
A: "Raw, undeveloped land out in front of the path of development."

2 Eli Broad: "investments" -- i.e., dealing in privileges

3 John Catsimatidis: oil, real estate, supermarkets
-- i.e., ownership of natural resources

4 Ken Fisher: money management -- dealing in privileges

5 B. Tom Golisano: Paychex -- Well! Actual productive work!

6 Harold Hamm: Continental Resources -- ownership of natural resources

7 Michael Heisley: manufacturing -- Productive work again!

8 Kenneth Hendricks: building supplies
-- Another one! Three producers out of eight so far!

9 Joseph Jamail, Jr.: lawsuits
-- hmmmm... transferring money from defendants to plaintiffs is not
productive

10 Ted Lerner: real estate -- ahhh, back to privilege...

11 Ronald Perelman: leveraged buyouts
-- "How to Destroy Productive Capacity for Fun and Profit"

12 Jorge Perez: condos -- i.e., landowning
Slightly too revealing answer to Q 10: When was the last evening that
hadn't been scheduled in advance? What did you do?
A: "Just today, one of the wealthiest families in Mexico came to Miami
and wanted to see me to see if we could develop their extensive land
holdings. Had a very productive and enjoyable three-hour lunch."

13 Richard Rainwater: real estate, energy, insurance
-- mainly natural resource ownership

14 Phil Ruffin: casinos, real estate
-- gambling monopoly privilege and landowner privilege

15 O. Bruton Smith: Speedway Motorsports -- oops! Actual production!

16 James Sorenson: medical devices, real estate
-- patent privileges and landowner privilege

17 A Alfred Taubman: real estate -- landowner privilege

18 Kenny Trout: Excel Communications -- MLM scam, not productive

19 Donald Trump: real estate
-- landowner privilege (especially property tax abatements)

20 Sanford Weill: Citigroup -- bank seignorage privilege

21 Mort Zuckerman: real estate, media
-- landownership and copyright privileges

Well, there you have it, folks. Just four of the 21 "self-made"
billionaires (out of the 400 on Forbes's list!) actually made the bulk
of their money through actual productive contributions. The rest were
all rent collectors or scammers of one stripe or another. The
productivity ratio is certainly worse in the full list of 400, many of
whom inherited or obtained their wealth by even less savory means.

-- Roy L
[/quote:5322ff39e3]

thanks roy. i to have been pointing out in my own crude way to a few
conservatives/libertarians about the self made/rugged individual/self
reliant/self responsible/pull yourself up by your own bootstrap/many
born with a silver spoon self made wall streeters who have their hands
out begging for bailouts, or handouts.
these people seem to think that a million dollars meant they were
born into poverty, and not privilege, so anything they made after
that, well, you know, they are self made, snicker.
that a mixed economy means they get the bailout, while the others get
the stick.
 
Paul Maffia
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:25 pm
 
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4706e93f.39422517@news.telus.net...
[quote:936f62cd91]Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html

Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
[/quote:936f62cd91]
You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.
 
ruetheday@outgun.com
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:51 pm
 
On Oct 6, 4:25 pm, "Paul Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
[quote:ef2738df84]ro...@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:4706e93f.39422517@news.telus.net...
Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_r...

Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.

I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:

You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.- Hide quoted text -

[/quote:ef2738df84]
Care to actually address any of his ponts?
 
Davinchi
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:28 pm
 
ruetheday@outgun.com wrote:
[quote:80039b04af]On Oct 6, 4:25 pm, "Paul Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
ro...@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:4706e93f.39422517@news.telus.net...
Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_r...
Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.
I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.- Hide quoted text -


Care to actually address any of his ponts?


I imagine the OP will run away, instead of making any useful[/quote:80039b04af]
comments. There is one basic fact that cannot be ignored;
Even if the productive enterprise is not in question, there
is not a doubt that the 'self made' label is an abuse of
reality. In fact based reality anybody who manages to
become wealthy does so because of social and physical
infrastructure - the things in the commons, the benefits of
an ordered society, and the assets provided by government
for which we pay our taxes.

It's totally backwards that in the US the republicans that
don't even believe government should play a role and hold
power in providing government services. They don't believe
in the concept, and that is truly bad government.

Had enough? - vote for a Democrat, a Progressive, a Green,
or anybody but the CONservatives.

Not that the democratic party will be perfect, but I'd
rather support candidates who believe and fail some of the
time, than those that don't believe (and thus are just
abusing the public monies, trashing constitutional rights,
and kowtowing to the fundiementalist).
 
lysander@comcast.net
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:32 am
 
ruetheday@outgun.com wrote:
[quote:b79cb309c6]On Oct 6, 4:25 pm, "Paul Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
ro...@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:4706e93f.39422517@news.telus.net...
Forbes has kindly provided brief interviews with 21 "self-made" (ahem)
billionaires from the 2007 Forbes 400 list of the richest people in
the USA:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_r...
Of course, those who have been keeping up with the "Are the Filthy
Rich Necessary" thread will be aware that almost all the wealth of
almost all really wealthy people is not earned by actual productive
contributions, but is obtained by making oneself the beneficiary of
unjust privileges. These privileges are mainly private ownership of
land and other natural resources such as minerals and broadcast
spectrum, IP monopoly privileges, the privilege of creating bank
deposits ex nihilo, and of course, the "business" of manipulating and
dealing in these privileges.
I've included the source of these billionaires' fortunes after their
names, and added some explanation. Notice how many specify "real
estate." So without further ado, heeeeeerrre they aaaaaaarre:
You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing. You display so little knowledge it is hilarious.- Hide quoted text -


Care to actually address any of his ponts?



If you were sitting on a park bench and a man sits next to you and[/quote:b79cb309c6]
claims to be Napoleon you would not engage in him in a discussion of
what went wrong at Waterloo. Would you?

Robert Solow on Rational Expectations. (a valid theory but the quotation
is hilarious)
 
Paul Thomas, CPA
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
 
<lysander@comcast.net> wrote
[quote:d1caee1cbf]If you were sitting on a park bench and a man sits
next to you and claims to be Napoleon you would
not engage in him in a discussion of what went
wrong at Waterloo. Would you?
[/quote:d1caee1cbf]




Maybe you would. But when another man sits across from you and claims *he*
is Napoleon, which of the two is then the impostor?






Then again, it may be time to look around and see that 'this isn't any
park', but the courtyard of the nut house.



--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
 
Guest
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:19 pm
 
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:25:09 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
<pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

[quote:fa7aee9474]You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing.
[/quote:fa7aee9474]
<yawn> If you think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, try
ignorance.

-- Roy L
 
Richard Eich
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:08 pm
 
royls@telus.net wrote...
[quote:103513e489]On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:25:09 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing.

yawn> If you think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, try
ignorance.
[/quote:103513e489]
LOL. One might easily define ignorance very well as "a little
knowledge."
 
Mark M.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:30 pm
 
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
[quote:44c46914d1]royls@telus.net> wrote

yawn> If you think a little knowledge
is a dangerous thing, try ignorance.









You are proof of how dangerous ignorance is.

Just ask any of the dozens of folks in your group who think the same of you.

Do you act the way you do to be more manly toward the few pals you have in
sci.econ?
[/quote:44c46914d1]

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=5815

Regarding Paul Thomas, CPA in Athens, Georgia:

Use caution when receiving responses from this infamous gadfly who prowls
misc.taxes and other newsgroups. As an ever present internet "troll," Paul
Thomas delights in starting arguments and sowing discord. Sometimes he
offers facts, and other times he offers opinions presented as facts. His
favorite mode is making ad hominem attacks. It's his specialty.

Troll Thomas sees internet communications as a venue for his bizarre games.
He is utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You
cannot negotiate with him. He creates his own rules for any exchange and
thinks everyone must follow his commands. He feels no shame or compassion;
you cannot reason with him. Thomas has no concept of courtesy or social
responsibility.

He does know some things about tax law, but not everything - as he would try
to imply. So get a second opinion when Paul blasts out "the answer." Those
who are usually offering reasonable and correct responses are generally not
so overbearing with their responses.

It is futile to try to "cure" a Paul Thomas of his obsession. He's hard to
ignore, but it's the best way to handle such an egomaniac. Remember - trolls
like Paul are disturbed people. Feel sorry for them, but don't feed them!

ak
 
Paul Maffia
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:39 pm
 
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:470a7466.11567809@news.telus.net...
[quote:0eea4d014c]On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:25:09 -0700, "Paul Maffia"
pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

You are the perfect example that proves the point that a little knowledge
is
a dangerous thing.

yawn> If you think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, try
ignorance.
[/quote:0eea4d014c]
I was being considerate. But you have more than accurately just described
yourself, you are ignorant.
 
Dan in Philly
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:43 pm
 
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message ...

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/secrets-self-made-ent-manage-cx_ll_richlist07_0920secretsqa.html

<snip>

Thanks for the summary.
I didn't read the article - it wasn't skim-friendly - but I'm curious about
some of these guys.

Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt they did
it thru privilege. Privilege benefits the original owner, or someone who
inherited from the original owner. These guys presumably bought land at
market prices from the owners. So if these guys got rich, then maybe they
can spot a natural resource that is underpriced relative to its potential.
Like what Warren Buffet does with stocks.
Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council to get
it rezoned as suburban.

RE banking: banking is not privilege. There are thousands of banks, in a
competitive market, and entry is virtually free. If there was privilege,
then existing banks would prevent the entry of new banks (but they don't)
and existing banks would never go bankrupt (but they do).

Casinos are interesting. The government controls and limits entry, so I'm
surprised that anyone in the private sector could get rich in that business.
I figured the state government would tax them to the point where they could
just barely make a profit. But apparently the government of Nevada isn't
extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I suspect bribes)

Lawsuits, insurance, and leveraged buyouts are just transfers of assets from
one person to another, except that there is a transaction cost. If these
guys got rich by being more efficient (i.e. lowering the transaction cost),
then great. If they did it thru sleazy b.s. then not so great.

Dan in Philly
 
Guest
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 am
 
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:43:39 GMT, "Dan in Philly" <djr8@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote:7ea6987b14]I didn't read the article - it wasn't skim-friendly - but I'm curious about
some of these guys.

Several got rich in natural resources and real estate. But I doubt they did
it thru privilege.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
They did, by definition.

[quote:7ea6987b14]Privilege benefits the original owner, or someone who
inherited from the original owner.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
It can benefit anyone who has it.

[quote:7ea6987b14]These guys presumably bought land at
market prices from the owners. So if these guys got rich, then maybe they
can spot a natural resource that is underpriced relative to its potential.
Like what Warren Buffet does with stocks.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
It's still dealing in privileges, not production.

[quote:7ea6987b14]Or maybe these guys bought rural land, then bribed the city council to get
it rezoned as suburban.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
Quite likely.

[quote:7ea6987b14]RE banking: banking is not privilege.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
Right. Creating deposits ex nihilo is.

[quote:7ea6987b14]There are thousands of banks, in a
competitive market, and entry is virtually free.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
Ah, no. And competition is irrelevant. Rent seekers do compete: for
rent.

[quote:7ea6987b14]If there was privilege,
then existing banks would prevent the entry of new banks (but they don't)
and existing banks would never go bankrupt (but they do).
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
Nonsense.

[quote:7ea6987b14]Casinos are interesting. The government controls and limits entry, so I'm
surprised that anyone in the private sector could get rich in that business.
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
LOL!!

[quote:7ea6987b14]I figured the state government would tax them to the point where they could
just barely make a profit. But apparently the government of Nevada isn't
extracting all the rent from the casinos. (again I suspect bribes)
[/quote:7ea6987b14]
No kidding.

-- Roy L
 
Paul Thomas, CPA
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:18 am
 
Yup, you found one of many of Andy's posts. They're just cut-n-paste. He's
zero for zero in original thought, and the few times he tried to use it
(thought) he was dead wrong. Take some time and look for where he had to
appologize profusely for his self-created "facts" about what I said.

You're headed down that same slope, having already changed what I said, by
adding to it.

Yeah, you're right up there with the best of the gutter huggers.




--
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"

Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
 
Mark M.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:16 pm
 
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
[quote:5ef6494b6e]Yup, you found one of many of Andy's posts. They're just cut-n-paste. He's
zero for zero in original thought, and the few times he tried to use it
(thought) he was dead wrong. Take some time and look for where he had to
appologize profusely for his self-created "facts" about what I said.

You're headed down that same slope, having already changed what I said, by
adding to it.
[/quote:5ef6494b6e]
You're a liar who tries to cover his misdeeds by accusing his victims of the same
thing.

Nobody with a functioning brain is fooled by you.

It's easy to see that you view this forum as a contest of technique over content.
You really don't care about learning anything. You are out to score points. We
don't care about points here. We're actually interested in the subjects we
discuss. We don't need to try to impress each other.

Error is no shame. We don't attack people for being wrong. Plenty of posters in
sci.econ have changed their minds as a result of discussions here. I'm not ashamed
to say I've learned things here and changed my mind as a result.

For your own sake I hope someday soon you abandon the childish narcissism and join
the search for truth. I'd be happy to learn something of value from you.


Mark M.
 
 
Page 1 of 3    Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:43 am