The only real fact about wealth which is not a
mirage is the old saying "The Rich get richer and
Poor get poorer". By its very nature money flows
towards those who know how to get it and keep it
(The Rich) and away from those who do not (The
Poor).
I think it would probably be more accurate to say
"By its very nature money flows towards those who
*have it* and know how to get it and keep it (The
Rich) and away from those who do not (The Poor)."
It's a lot easier to have your money work for you
when you have some money to "play with", so to
speak... risking capital is generally a luxury
afforded to those who have capital to risk.
Actually, "By its very nature money flows towards
those who..." control in some way access to a
necessary or desirable resource. This may be by
means of controlling the results of
production (not really the means as Marx thought).
This may be by thuggery, or by organizing workers,
etc.
Having money already only helps in such
matters. More generally, those who have been able
to get rich in the past will (usually) be able to
get richer in the future and those who have not
done so are not likely to do so in the future.
Not that the poor can't become rich with
sufficient skill or luck (or the rich can't become
poor with vastly insufficent skill or luck),
No amount of skill is sufficient if someone else
controls the results of applying that skill.
but it's easier to make a million bucks when you
already have that first million, even if you just
inherited it from daddy...
That first million is useful in acquiring the
vital control that I mentioned above. It may in
fact be vital in acquiring that control (by
means including owning Marx's "means of
production" or owning distribution channels or by
means of buying influence with a goverment that is
controlling or rgulating the normal flow of
commerce.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, "By its very nature money flows towards those who ..." control in some way access to a
necessary or desirable resource. This may be by
means of controlling the results of
production (not really the means as Marx thought).
This may be by thuggery, or by organizing workers,
etc.
Having money already only helps in such matters. More generally, those who have been able to get rich in the past will (usually) be able to get richer in the future and those who have not done so are not likely to do so in the future.
No amount of skill is sufficient if someone else controls the results of applying that skill.
That first million is useful in acquiring the vital control that I mentioned above. It may in fact be vital in acquiring that control (by means including owning Marx's "means of production" or owning distribution channels or by means of buying influence with a goverment that is controlling or rgulating the normal flow of commerce.
Goverments everywhere and always have looked for
excuses to limit communication and dissemination
of information.
The "Federalist Papers" were printed and distributed
clandestinely! Why do you think the 1st Amendment to
the US Constitution is so important.
And has everyone here forgotten the abortive
"Communications Decency Act"?