Can you feel the love ?

Feels like TS is about to HTF.

I can't understand why there are so many mega rich folk on here complaining about the tax increase. If I were earning money at the rate they must be to be paying more tax under the new government I wouldn't be spending so much time on an Internet message board. We must have the wealthiest group of posters on the Internet.

I would have thought that most ordinary people should be thanking the new president for their tax cuts.

But you will. Either through welfare or encarcerating/legal fees.

I think the Chinese would keep their share.

Most wealth is inherited. How do you suppose the Paris Hiltons of the world would regain their wealth in one year? Sort of a bad example.

But most wealth is not inherited...

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/



The Paris Hiltons of the world are the exception, not the rule.

I suspect that in a quickly rising market, the proportion of inherited wealth goes down. If I die and leave you $100,000 and you manage to invest it at 17.5% (not unusual returns for real estate in the post-bubble days), your money will double in just four years, quadruple in eight. At the end of that eight years, you would report that your "inherited wealth accounted for only 25% of your net worth," when in reality, it accounted for all of it.

So it may be that the inherited portion of rich people's wealth has simply amortized away.

It would be interesting to see how this figure changes in a world where declining growth is the long-term rule, rather than a short-term exception.

The data seems to be based on what the fat cats say. I wouldn't expect them to say "I got it all from daddy the rum-runner" etc.

Tyler_JC has listed sources to back up his claim. Keith_McClary. did NOT.

It is clear as day that Tyler_JC is making a stronger argument than Keith_McClary.

No it isn't

How many ways can you get/make wealth?

Earn it?

Steal it?

Inherit it?

You don't need sources to cut through the bullshit!

In a peakoil world there will be a steady state economy therefore we can make 2 conclusions:
1) The only way for a person to elevate their wealth would be to do it at someone else's expenses because remember it's a zero sum game.
2) If the first rule is true then the rich would try to suppress the poor and everybody else. Ouch that sounds like a very mean world.

getting back to our world:
We currently live in a world where rich people try to help poor people move up.
The rich gain no benefit from poor people staying poor.
In a growth based economy, a person does NOT lose if their neighbor increases his wealth so therefore we actually live in a very kind and gentle world, especially for the poor.

I partly agree.

(US) Americans have a higher disposaeble income compared to most people in (Western) Europa.

But I assume that the comparison lacks in some ways.

People here live in smaller houses, but those houses have a very high standard made from solid brick, 20cm insulation, double or triple sided windows ect. A typical German house should and will last an average of 200 years. (houses built in the 1950th 1960th excluded)

I don't know if we spend less on consumption. In my opinion the amount of foof calories may be lower (that'ts not a bad thing), but the quality of the food is much higher on average.
I can get to the next small shop and chose between 50 different types of real juices. 100% natural juices and not some artificial flavoured, sugared and colored water. I can get to the small bakery next door and chose between 30 different types of bread, real bread.
Ok, that also about thing that people like to eat, we don't have 30 types of donuts (I didn't see a single donut for months).
I can't see a difference in clothes.
But there is a difference in cars and electronic stuff. (on the other hand most DSLR sales go to Europa these days, that's the only electronic statistics I know without the need of google).

So yes, Americans do consume more. If they do consume things of higher value I don't really know.
If they really -have- the money or if it's only borrowed money to buy all that stuff is a another question.

My personal opinion -and I'm one of those guys who currently pays a lot into the system without getting much out- is that I prefer the European model. (btw. you forgot free or at least heavy subsidized education at universities).

I prefer social security over excessive consumption.

I don't feel poor.

btw, I'm an engineer and I don't have a house and I even don't have a car, because I don't need either. On the other hand I have exactly zero dept and never had any dept to pay.

Seems, that you've have never been to Germany?

(ok, maybe we don't count as rich anymore)

I assume that 99,9% of all western people are parasites on the global systems.

We waste resources (without paying, what they are really worth), we pollute the planet without paying for it and we keep 50% of the worlds people in slavery and misery to work for our consumption.

Don't point with your finger on others when you are talking about people that mainly take from "the system" and don't give.

Depends on how you measure "wealth." If a family or group of relatively poor people pool their resources to buy land and then manage that land in such a way as to achieve maximum long-term ("sustainable") productivity, they can increase their wealth through the action of photosynthesis (solar energy), which is not at anyone else's expense.

See "permaculture"

I think the likes of HT Odum would argue otherwise: in a peak oil world, there will be a steadily declining economy, until energy use falls to a sustainable level.

Energy use = economy.

We've known this for sixty years: "The better you live, the more oil you use." -- Esso advertisement, New Yorker, 1949