The Republican Utopia

[ZRod]

Not when daddy gave you the money and you keep losing it (imho)

If you are referencing Trump, he still made plenty of money. He just could have made more with smarter decisions.

[Moiraine]

 

I've had similar thoughts about the wealthy making economic decisions.

Is there any correlation at all between being rich and understanding Economics?

Ok....do all rich people understand economics? Hell no.

But.....are good economists that are smart enough to make policies going to be rich???? Ya... pretty much.

Who are you going to get??? Billy Joe Jimbob from the tire store to stop selling mudders to make economic policy????

Some people's hatred of rich people.....

This reply is nonsensical.

 

You open up saying exactly the same thing I'm saying. They need to be economists. Specifically people who understand macroeconomics - they need to understand it on the national and global level.

 

Next, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that anyone is suggesting you get some random poor guy to do it? You're just being condescending or obtuse at this point. It needs to be an economist or someone with a great understanding of it but they don't need to be rich. Someone who has dedicated their life to researching it and is a professor won't necessarily be rich.

 

To the last line - utter nonsense. And you say this often. You also read into my posts (on all different topics) often.

 

Someone could be posting that a company caused deaths because they cut corners to save a buck, and someone could reply that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, and you would reply that they hate rich people.

 

Nothing in my post even implied I hate rich people. I don't think wealth is an important enough factor to put someone in charge of economic policy. Trump thinks it's enough, as do many who voted for him.

[BigRedBuster]

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

[Moiraine]

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said. The post I was replying to was about Trump's policies not being good but the thing is he's POTUS. He should he very good at what he's trying to do. Being "decent" or "pretty good" isn't the goal.

 

Then I wrote 2 sentences and you read them completely incorrectly.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid. He doesn't understand economics. He understands money-making for himself. And because he thinks he's an economic expert he likely has no intention to listen to any actual experts.

[funhusker]

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

 

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

That may very well be true but it doesn't at all refute my argument. Let's assume it's true.

 

There are many wealthy people who don't have a good understanding of national/global economics.

 

Many people who understand national/global economics are wealthy.

 

 

The above 2 statements are saying very different things. We want the latter group. Not the former.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

That may very well be true but it doesn't at all refute my argument. Let's assume it's true.

 

There are many wealthy people who don't have a good understanding of national/global economics.

 

Many people who understand national/global economics are wealthy.

 

 

The above 2 statements are saying very different things. We want the latter group. Not the former.

 

Gotcha. I replied before you edited. I was just going of the conversation between you and BRB about why rich people are in charge of economic decision making.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

 

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

 

I very much doubt the bolded part. I'd bet there's a much stronger correlation between your parents being wealthy and you being wealthy.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

 

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

 

I very much doubt the bolded part. I'd bet there's a much stronger correlation between your parents being wealthy and you being wealthy.

 

Maybe both can be true

[BigRedBuster]

My problem with the comments is that I don't understand why even comment on someone's wealth. You must have had some negative attitude towards them being rich.

 

Someone can grow up poor and pretty much get a free education in economics from unl.... if they are smart (no colilation to wealth) they can get post graduate degrees and get a very nice job in a big firm and become rich.

 

These firms are where you are going to find most of the brightest minds in the field.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

Your post implied it's bad that these horrible rich people are making economic policy.

 

Rich people are going to have these jobs. They are also going to come from wallsteeet firms. Just a fact of life.

 

Then, some people rant about how horrible it is that rich wallstreet people are in charge of economic policy.

What you think I said is not at all what I said.

 

 

I'm just going to talk about correlation now.

 

I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions).

 

What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics.

 

I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country.

 

It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often.

 

If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale.

 

Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid.

 

No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it.

 

But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

 

I very much doubt the bolded part. I'd bet there's a much stronger correlation between your parents being wealthy and you being wealthy.

 

Maybe both can be true

 

Could be. I'd like to see evidence for either claim.

[Moiraine]

My problem with the comments is that I don't understand why even comment on someone's wealth. You must have had some negative attitude towards them being rich.

 

Someone can grow up poor and pretty much get a free education in economics from unl.... if they are smart (no colilation to wealth) they can get post graduate degrees and get a very nice job in a big firm and become rich.

 

These firms are where you are going to find most of the brightest minds in the field.

The bolded isn't the problem. The problem is you make wild assumptions about the posters instead of just reading what they're saying.

 

Putting random wealthy people in charge of the economy is a bad idea, but that's what a lot of people were doing when they voted for Trump and that's what he seems to be doing with the people around him. They aren't experts in economy. It is assumed they understand economy ONLY because they're rich. That's literally all I've been saying in this entire conversation. Being rich should not be a factor in whether you get put in charge of economic policy. Being an expert in the economy should be. If you can't see why this is bad then you are the biased one.

 

I shouldn't have to say the following, because it should be the content that matters and not your imaginings about the poster, but I haven't had a single negative experience with a rich person. My grandpa owned his own business and had a lot of $. My mom started and owns her own business. I didn't want for anything (monetarily) growing up. I make enough $ to pay all of my bills. I have no personal grudge against rich people. None of this should have been necessary to tell you if you would just read the actual posts and think about them and not add your own perceived flavor to another person's posts.

 

It seems really condescending when you do this (over-read into posts and come up with what your imagination tells you they're saying) and you've done it to me personally 4-5 times in the past 2 months.

[RedDenver]

My problem with the comments is that I don't understand why even comment on someone's wealth. You must have had some negative attitude towards them being rich.

 

Someone can grow up poor and pretty much get a free education in economics from unl.... if they are smart (no colilation to wealth) they can get post graduate degrees and get a very nice job in a big firm and become rich.

 

These firms are where you are going to find most of the brightest minds in the field.

The reason for commenting about wealth is the rising wealth inequality in our country coupled with the ability for the wealthy to buy elections/politicians. It's not that I think being wealthy is a problem - it's the current situation which allows the rich to set the rules which they've been doing to benefit themselves to the detriment of others. And it's a cycle that makes the rich richer and therefore exert even more influence on the rules, and repeat.

[Moiraine]

Just to add to the above, let's say my mom had turned her successful business into a chain and it had blown up. It's my opinion that wouldn't have required her to be an expert on national economy.

 

So let's say she was filthy rich. She would still not know much of anything about the national economy. She'd know about running her very specific business. She could maybe give some sort of input but she would absolutely not be someone who should be in a big role when it comes to making economic policy.

 

That is all I have been saying. Being rich doesn't mean you understand economy.

[zoogs]

Understanding the economy as a business person is also very, very different from understanding what is good economic policy. Successful business acumen doesn't mean you have the faintest idea what policies are sensible. In fact, it may leave you enormous blind spots.