"In fact, in all of our economic analysis the single biggest trend we've noticed in determining what makes someone have wealth (net worth of at least $1 million) is pure luck. That's right - luck. It's the one thing they have in common in almost all cases."

Sounds like some high quality objective analysis when you're using "luck" as a variable in your model.  So how exactly do you determine what was lucky and what wasn't?

"Actually, it DOES work."

There's a big difference between "it does work" and "I think it would work based on some masturbatory analysis that I saw."  I know we don't want to believe the actual numbers, but why don't you enlighten us all with some instead of stating your opinion as fact?

blistiza, I hope you are not limiting your idea that everyone should have an equal choice, regardless of wealth, only to healthcare? I would think this should also extend to all facets of life... people should have their choice of automobile, place of residence, education, profession, food, etc.  All of these things, and numerous others, impact quality of life, and by extension life expectancy. It's not fair that some people get to eat healthy food growing up, or go to the best schools, or have a reliable automobile, or live in a home without lead paint, just because they have more money. Shouldn't we equalize everything as best we can? We have a minimum wage. Some have advocated we have a maximum wage as well, on the order of ten times the minimum wage. Does anyone really need to make more than $150,000 a year? If inequity in income/wealth is what drives inequity in life, then shouldn't that be eliminated one way or another? Or perhaps a return to the 70%+ maximum income tax rates that we had from 1936-1980 (and in most of those years the top tax rate was over 90%)?

bistiza - i DO agree everyone is created equal, and by no means should you vary from that viewpoint. i agree completely. like i said, just because you may be smarter or richer than someone, it doesnt mean you are a BETTER person. but you CAN be more valuable. don't try to mix up those two concepts, that is a massive mistake on your part, IMO. now, your ACTIONS absolutely can make you better or worse than another person, just like your ACTIONS can make you more or less valuable. i am a pretty smart guy, and a major contributor at work. but the president is more important than me. still, i might be a better person. but not knowing which is which, if i had to take the "veil of ignorance (you dont know who you are)" approach, and decide who lived and who died, between me and the president - id save the president. hes more important. that in NO WAY is in direct conflict with all men being created equal. just like i'd chose a 5 month old baby to live over a 95 year old man with stage 3 cancer. you can't just say "all men are created equal" and then use it as some line to hide behind, in terms of the value of one's life. its really simple - the guy who is about to die just isnt going to contribute to society as much as the baby is, or the president is (well, lets assume for argument sake we talking about a president who is doing some good, not harm to the nation, i realize viewpoints on that differ today but thats not really the point).

second, you are right, i was a little extreme calling you communist. socialist to the extreme, yes. socialism in the extreme form just simply does NOT provide economic growth like the free market system, nobody has the incentive to work their *** off and create a billion dollar company and 10 thousand jobs when they get no personal material gain. sure, some small fraction (like the small fraction of your basketball players who are totally selfless and who getting benched repeatedly only makes them work harder), they might work hard. but history has proven, you don't get the economic growth. and thus from a society standpoint, extreme socialism just simply does not make sense. disagree? ill be satisfied with on good example. you can study it all you want but its pretty damn hard to refute that statement. and in a free market, you have inequality, but MUCH, MUCH more to go around - and thus a better situation for society in general. more innovation, higher standards of living, better education, this all comes out of a free market, and you know, pretty much the entirety of the successful developed world has recognized this. even "communist" china is MUCH MUCH closer to a free market model than the extreme socialism you suggest.


and you say, to my point, the 100M guy can afford to pay the 90M proceedure -  "The short answer: Because your wealth doesn't make you better than anyone, despite what you may think.". heres what you need to realize. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! I AGREE COMPLETELY ABOUT THE WEALTH NOT MAKING YOU BETTER BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. heres the reality. NOBODY is entitled to use 90 million dollars of money that isnt theirs to save their life. its not fair, its incredibly selfish, and once again, you put your face next to the definition of "hypocrite" in the next edition of webster, when you combine this sentiment with your tirade against entitlement. what about a trillion dollars? at some point, NOBODY is entitled to that support from the rest of the nation, the burden is too big. now, ill grant you this - the guy will 100M who spents 99M saving his life, if he is a really good and noble person, should give that 99M to charity and die, knowing its a better use of the money. but if you believe in the free market system - particularly the free part - which you clearly do not (and thus, i have no idea why we even continue this charade) - ITS YOUR CHOICE HOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY. so, if you want to be selfish and use 99M to save your life, its your choice. if you want to use 99M of taxpayer or insurance money (which is effectively the same thing, if you really think about it) - then too bad. its NOT your choice. you CANT do that today and no way should you be allowed to. not unless you put the life of 1 man above the suffering of thousands and thousands of americans. i don't. you are really unbelievable, railing against entitlement, and then telling me we should effectively let 10 thousand homeless people die in the cold to give a guy a hundred million dollar procedure. thats entitlement to the extreme. you don't seem to get it - money is a finite resource. you say you've studied this stuff professionally - i hope to god thats a stretch - because if you are a policy maker making policies on these beliefs, some people are really going to get screwed. i can't think of a more selfish viewpoint on the world.

i know this may be a stretch, due to your body of work - but this MAY be the dumbest thing you've ever said:

In fact, in all of our economic analysis the single biggest trend we've noticed in determining what makes someone have wealth (net worth of at least $1 million) is pure luck. That's right - luck. It's the one thing they have in common in almost all cases. They were lucky in one way or another that was absolutely instrumental to their obataining their excessive wealth. That luck came in a vareity of forms, from being in the right place at the right time to being given opportunities they truly didn't deserve to simply hitting the lottery or becoming a business tycoon - but it was the one common bottom line across wealthy people of varying backgrounds.

clearly, you have absolutely no business sense or experience, any businessman would LAUGH IN YOUR FACE. including me. HAHAHAHA ARE YOU SERIOUS?

ask anyone. success is when preparation meets opportunity. yes, some luck is involved. but most millionaires and billionaires didnt just hit the lottery. sure, some did, some got an inheritance (again, see the free market system, its got to happen). but most of those people who originally created the wealth had an opportunity, and WORKED THEIR ******* *** OFF. you think its easy? ive watched a business start, and grow to 175 employees. my father is the principle founder. he and his brother worked OVER 100 hours a week for at least the first 2 years, and i would guess my uncle has averaged that 100 hours for the last 15 YEARS. my father is at least at 80. and while on paper they now are worth millions, you would never know it by meeting them - they don't have that money, and they don't live like it. these are blue jean wearing, 10 year old car driving regular guys, who saw an opportunity, and again - they WORKED THEIR ******* ***** OFF. thats how businesses get started and succeed. to call it luck is an insult to everybody who has ever created anything of value - and obviously, based on your view point, you have not - and never will. otherwise, you'd never even consider making such an insane statement. well, enjoy your life of mediocrity followed by a ****** retirement - because unless america ends socialist, that is where you are heading. what a crock of ****, thats about the furthest viewpoint from the american dream you could ever have. and you DARE insult others for a sense of entitlement? where do you get off.

re: creating the automobile and changing the world for the better meaning you should be able to take your money and spend it how you like, such as, getting a prohibitively expensive procedure not available to the public:

I disagree with that because it says the wealthy are more important than others, which is simply WRONG. No one is more important than anyone else, LEAST of all because they have money. That is the ultimate in wealth breeding arrogance and is the epitome of what I stand against.

your inability to grasp basic concepts is amazing. its not the fact that you are WEALTHY that makes you better - but a guy who spends his life trying to build a better world IS better than a guy who sits on his ***. im not saying people on welfare are all sitting on their ***, or anything else you allude to in your inane ramblings. but the man who devoted his life to changing the world, yeah, he gets some bonus points.

but thats now what that post is about. its about VALUE. and again, you HAVE to separate the concept of the VALUE OF A PERSON TO SOCIETY from all men are equal. if someone creates the automobile, or the computer, changing the world forever, and advancing society to a degree beyond the cumulative affect of a million ordinary men - THEN OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT/VALUABLE. hes valuable as ****! you dont think hes more important than some random person? what the hell are you smoking? if we could sacrifice a random person to save steve jobs, the world would be a lot better off (im not saying its right to do so, but that is a fact, the world would benefit from the trade in 99.9999% of the cases). that does not make steve jobs ANY better of a person. it does not mean ANYTHING about men are not equal. all it means is, plain and simple, STEVE JOBS WAS CHANGING THE WORLD SO HES GOD DAMN VALUABLE, AND **** YES HES MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU OR ME. more important than me or you or just about anyone else on this planet. better? no. equal to us as men? sure. but equally valuable? are you ******* delusional? 

or maybe im delusional. lets take a poll: who else on this board thinks they are as valuable to society, as important, as steve jobs, henry ford, FDR? 

one more - 
Keep in mind it isn't me calling this luck, but in most cases the people who attained the wealth looked at the data themselves and said at least part of their success was based on pure luck.

like i said, success is when preparation meets opportunity. i forget which famous successful guy said it, but pretty much all really successful people subscribe to that notion. OF COURSE luck is a factor. bill gates says he was in the right place at the right time. but you know who else was in that place at that time? a **** ton of other americans. but bill gates is the one who became the richest man in the world. why? he worked his *** off, and out smarted his competition. and sure, he broke some laws and stomped anti-trust laws into the ground, and id even throw him in jail over it if it was my call. but just because the opportunity came along, doesnt make it luck. you have to be prepared, and you have to work your *** OFF to make it happen. yes, luck is a factor. but to characterize the rich as being rich almost purely out of luck is just absurd.

Bistiza, I don't come from wealth at all.  As I already pointed out, my parents are both physicians, but small practices in states without caps on pain and suffering pay so much of their income in malpractice insurance that they make far less money than you'd think.  Actually, most years it's under $100K combined.  As I mentioned earlier, my dad's 68 and working a second job because they want to help my mom's parents out with some things and finish putting my brother through college and eventually retire.  To say that only people who come from wealth believe that the free market system is the best system is ridiculous.  Most people I know, very few of whom are independently wealthy, are FAR less socialist than you.  Frankly, there's a reason why socialist and communist are almost dirty words in this country.  It comes back to the same thing I have criticized you about for months - you consider all problems from a perspective that we can treat human beings as ideal.  It just doesn't work.  If there isn't an economic incentive to do good work, the majority of people simply don't.  This applies to healthcare as much as anything else.  There's a reason people from Canada and Europe frequently come to the United States for major medical procedures if they can afford to.  Our capitalist system breeds better high-end doctors than their socialized healthcare systems.  There is no doubt whatsoever that in the real world the free market system produces the best doctors in the world, and that the best doctors in the world want to come here and make money for their talent.  A fully socialized healthcare system like you advocate would cause us to lose that.  And don't try to give me bs about people in those countries living longer.  Yes, they do, but that's not empirical evidence for their healthcare system being better.  They're also less fat.  How big is the impact of that?  It's hard to measure, but many experts put the cost of a sort of "average" American level of obesity at 8-10 years, and they don't live 8-10 years longer.  They live about 2 years longer.

Most people with some intellect are capable of seeing that socialism is a great system in theory.  MOST of us have the ability to understand why it doesn't work in the real world.  The empirical evidence is with us.  A) productivity goes down and B) eventually someone is going to abuse power, and then the whole thing really goes off the rails.

Ultimately, don't tell me that I have to be wealthy to see the value in a wealth-based system.  It absolutely works.  Frankly, compare the United States to the various levels of welfare states in Europe.  There's almost a linear inverse relationship between GDP per capita and tax rates.  The more you socialize, the less productive the economy is.  Your models may work perfectly, but it's hard to model human nature.  If you want to totally ignore the empirical evidence go for it, but don't tell us that all the experts who aren't being paid off by the wealthy agree with you.  That's a bunch of bullshit.  I'm sure you believe it; it seems obvious to me that you've surrounded yourself by like-minded people who are similarly detached from the real world and the realities of human nature.  This really isn't the best way to perform studies or reach conclusions.  But for you to try to convince us that everyone agrees with your Bistizaland conclusions is straight-up laughable.

i will admit though, my budget appropriations for bourbon are rather large... its almost criminal really. but, i really do my part to help keep my local (kentucky) economy buzzing! and thats the right thing to do, isn't it?? :)

i agree with that dahs. but i will say taxes going too low is a problem, too. did the bush tax cuts help this country's economy boom? i dont really think so, but over the course of their existence, that is trillions of dollars of national debt we dont need. everyone ******* about obama - including me - but the reality is, his deficits are more from a decrease in income than an increase in spending. i fully opposed the bush tax cuts and i think our country has to try to not only balance the budget, but work to pay the debt down. we need to tighten up today, sure, but i think people are just unrealistic about where they want their standard of living - the standard of living we have enjoyed the last 50 years came with a price tag - of 16 trillion dollars (and maybe 5-10 times that when you include all our other governmental obligations). there is only one word for that - unmolested greed. ok, two words :) i dont have a problem with my kids having to share a bedroom, and neither should anyone else. if you can afford it great, but its not something we should expect or demand. i dont have a problem with my kids getting hand me down clothing or any of those million things people have done to get by for the last ten thousand years. i DO want them to get a good education, get good health care, live free of concern of, you know, getting blown up in a major attack on america or some ****. but that is what matters. americans (and all people in the world) are just too greedy and materialistic (look at my fancy new car! (which i cant afford unless i sign my soul away for the next 7 years)).

and really, that is what it all comes down to. like dahs says, that is why none of your ideas have a chance in hell, bistiza. we dont live in a selfless society of robots. people are greedy. and no way in hell are they going to bust their *** to help someone else, without personal benefit. i mean sure, you can find me a handful of people like that out of maybe every hundred or thousand. but the VAST MAJORITY of people operate based on greed, and so we need to design our economic and social policies around that fact. anything else is simply unrealistic. its like your basketball players who all have golden, unflinching work ethic. bench them, and they all try harder. its just not like that, in reality, the biggest challenge IMO of many coaches at top programs is managing the egos of all their cocky *** players who think they deserve everything, and keeping them motivated when they dont get it.

"

heres the reality bub - your system doesn't work. you want to bankrupt the world? then for your sake, i hope your ideas succeed.

Actually, it DOES work. The ultimate reality is that the wealthy want to convince everyone it doesn't work because the current system is to their benefit, and since they have the power to influence ideas, that's exactly what they do. No one wants to try a system like this because they think it won't work because they buy into the propaganda.

I've studied the economics. So have many people I've worked with. If you'd have seen what I've seen, you would be INCREDIBLY surprised to find out the things that would be not only financially and economically viable but would probably work wonders and be better by far than what we have now.

But no one wants to live outside their comfort zone. No one wants to beleive the actual numbers and what those who study economics have to say. And some economists get paid to say what the wealthy want them to say, just like anyone else.

The truth is capitalism isn't the great thing so many people would have you believe. There are better systems, but as long as the wealthy continue to convince everyone else that isn't true, it will remain the same.  "


I'm not going back and trying to find your disclaimer in all those lines of ranting, but this is what I was responding to re: stating opinion as fact.  It annoys me that you're coming across as holier than thou about your magical analysis that we don't understand.  And even better, you won't elaborate on it because it's not worth your time.

I'm curious if "I've studied the economics" just means you have an undergrad degree in economics.

billyg, I should clarify that I wasn't using tax-rates as a stand-alone measure of how government impacts the economy.  I'm just using it as a very visible measure of to what degree a country is a welfare state.  If you live in Denmark you pay more taxes, get free healthcare, two years worth of unemployment insurance, two years worth of maternity leave, 6 months of paternity leave, and various other benefits.  I'm using tax rates as a stand-in for social wealth redistribution programs, but it's much easier to measure tax rates since it's a fairly straightforward number or set of numbers.

"  The analysis is much more involved than a simple assignment of luck as a variable. It's an in-depth analysis using more data than I could possibly explain here, including interviews with the people involved and other information that cannot be classified the same way you're suggesting here.

Several things went into discussing what was luck and what wasn't. However, a circumstance of "luck" was, for the puposes of a simple explanation not meant to convey the entirety of what was being done, defined as "a situation which would have happened regardless of who was invovled". To make it even simpler, as a very broad example, whether it was you or Bill Gates, it would have happened the same in that situation, and it just happened to have been him, so he's rich and you aren't.  "

I really don't see any value in categorizing it as luck like that, except just to support your viewpoint.  First of all, you're making a subjective determination.  You're saying me and Bill Gates would have turned out the same way if we were both put in position X.  Well that's a pretty effin big assumption to make don't you think?  When you throw those in it tends to make your analysis pretty useless and self-fulfilling.

Also, well no ****.  I'm sure TONS of people have the same desire to be rich that Bill Gates has.  They don't let them all line up and have a foot race to see who wins.  Random events HAVE to play a role.  They play a role in everything.

"As I already pointed out, my parents are both physicians, but small practices in states without caps on pain and suffering pay so much of their income in malpractice insurance that they make far less money than you'd think. "

I know that I'm jumping in and this has nothing to do with the argument, but as someone who is intimately involved in this argument on a daily basis, this is crap.  Minnesota has no tort cap and also has some of the lowest med mal premiums.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not say you're lying about your parents' premiums.  I doubt very seriously that with TWO physician parents you were ever concerned about money, but that's another issue.  But blaming high premiums on med mal litigation is a bullshit conservative talking point.