They earn more than me. They have more than me. I do not begrudge this.

The use of derogatory terms is petty at best. That is my beef, for the reasons outlined.

The rest: I think we can save for another venue and time.

As corrected.

I don’t have a beef with capitalism per se, but to the extent that rewards greed to the exclusion of most other things, then that’s problematical.

Imagine if Jefferson had decided he wouldn’t rock the boat because it might threaten his status as a gentleman farmer. Imagine if corporations were given free rein because “what’s good for GM is good for America” and “the business of America is business.” Imagine if civil rights marches were quashed because it tended to disrupt the businesses on the streets where they took place.

Capitalism is wonderful, but there are other things that are far more wonderful, and let’s make it a point never to forget that.

After all, Jesus Christ was no capitalist.

Trickle down economics have been pretty much discredited as uneffective and even the Republican party in the US no longer uses them.

140. Why would I disdain the rich? By most people’s definitions, I think that would constitute self-loathing! Not very healthy. :)

I was simply making a point of order about the incorrect conflation of two different economic terms… not launching an attack on entrepreneurs!

The “trickle-down” theory, specifically, doesn’t work for me because it’s way too indirect to hold true at anything but the most general, vague sense. It doesn’t take into account the real effect of market fluctuations. As we all saw recently, when the market goes from bull to bear, not only does the trickle stop, but it actually goes in reverse — the lower and middle classes suffer, while the rich basically just coast or take advantage and gain wealth. And everyone on all sides of the ideological spectra agree, no free market system can stay bull forever. The net effect, I feel, is that, yes, higher GDP generally improves conditions for everyone, but when the wealthiest are free to spend as they like, they generally just invest in getting wealthier, concentrating wealth at the highest echelons, and not really letting much improve the overall state of affairs.

Anyway, returning to the case of Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic, I do applaud that kind of entrepreneurship, because it has the potential to really open up new markets, and new avenues for growth in a domains tangible to mass markets (not the flights themselves, but adjunct enterprises). In short, it’s visionary, it’s risky. (I judge these things on a case by case basis).

First, I’m not saying “redistribute wealth” (in my comment #54). I’m saying I wish people (myself included, more often that I’d care to admit) lived their lives in such a way that truly tried to make the world a better place, rather than in a selfish “I’m going to spend the amount of money it could take to feed an entire third world nation for a week for a five minute joyride” kind of way. (Yes, there are levels of exaggeration in my statement.)

Unfortunately, I say that and I sound like a leftwing nut who wants to redistribute everyone else’s wealth. No, I just would love to see a less selfish world.

I’d also like to see a harder working world, where people didn’t just rely on governmental welfare to take care of them. Of course, I say THAT and I sound like a rightwing nut who wants to hoard everything for the sake of capitalism. No, I just believe that the worker is worth his pay. If you can contribute to society, you should.

Wanting a world where people actually treat each other with kindness . . . Sheesh, now I sound like a hippy.

That’s all I was saying. Wouldn’t it be awesome if more people were like Mother Theresa? Or, in a different way, Bill and Melinda Gates? Imagine how much better everyone’s life would be . . .

And, now I’m sounding like a lyrically stunted Beatle. Really, I don’t know why I’m posting this. Either I’m not going to explain my thoughts well or they’re going to be taken out of context . . . or both.