[Vision2020] FW: The Nation, 6/30/08
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Jul 30 10:54:19 PDT 2008
You are absolutely right. JacK Simplot is another good example. He had a third grade education and started with nothing. Through his ingenuity and hard word he became one of the richest men in Idaho.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Kai Eiselein, Editor" editor at lataheagle.com
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:51:25 -0700
To: "Levi Cavener" lcavener at vandals.uidaho.edu, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: The Nation, 6/30/08
> Education, in itself, is not an indicator of future wealth.
> I believe "drive" is a far better predictor. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's, was a high school drop out, Bill Gates is a college drop out. The list can go on and on.
> Most "new" millionaires aren't in suit and tie professions, they are in the service trades; plumbers, electricians, contractors, that sort of thing.
> Using your statement of "better" schools, I shouldn't be able to read or write very well. I should be working a menial job somewhere, solely because I went to school in one of the poorest school districts in Arizona and I didn't finish college. Santa Cruz County is the smallest, and, at that time anyway, the poorest county in the state. The city of Nogales consistently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Drug and alcohol use in school was rampant (I had teachers who came to class stoned), crime was high, gangs were around, although not as prevalent as they are now. (I'm sure Keely could add comments on the view people/students in Tucson took on Nogales.)
> I'm not rich by any means, but I'm not dirt poor either.
> People who have made their own wealth have one thing in common, the willingness to put in very long hours, to take risks, to think outside of the norm and to doggedness to overcome obstacles.
> You rarely ever see them say "Poor me", even when they fail.
>
>
> From: Levi Cavener
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:10 AM
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: The Nation, 6/30/08
>
>
> "My premise is that most of those who were "haves" before the distribution
> > would manage to accumulate wealth, becoming "haves" again.
> > Of those who were "have nots" before the distribution, most would become
> > "have nots" again."
>
> But think about the reason why the previously wealthy would once again become wealthy. Before the redistribution the wealthy could afford whatever tools they needed (including tools for their children) such as access to better schools (I'm not dismissing the public school system, just saying that an elite private school is likely to produce a better education than the public system could), access to higher and continuing education for both themselves and their children, as well as previous on the job experience and knowledge for jobs that pay more such as experience in being a CEO of a company. Compare this in contrast to the previous "have-nots" who hypothetically just had wealth redistributed. Upon the redistribution they have no tools or background experience to advance from aside from working a low level job in the service industry. Even if they were to pursue the tools they need to get a job that pays more than the job they previous had by such means as getting an
education or internships they already start at a disadvantage because the previously wealthy already possess all these tools. As a result the previous "have-nots" have to play catchup with the previously wealthy - they are the tortoise in the race of wealth and can only win if the wealthy (hares) make a mistake that allows them to catch up or pass them. Assuming this hypothetical wealth redistribution did occur, who would you expect to become wealthy again? A CEO of a fortune 500 company or a person who has been flipping burgers? Just a thought.
>
>
>
> ~Esto Perpetua
>
> Levi Cavener
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: editor at lataheagle.com
> > To: sslund_2007 at verizon.net; lfalen at turbonet.com; kjajmix1 at msn.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; thansen at moscow.com
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:07:37 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
> >
> > As usual, Tom, fails to grasp the conversation and tries comparing apples to
> > oranges.
> > I will simplify it for him.
> > Tom, a complete wealth distribution would begin with everyone on equal
> > financial footing. Over time, the finances of some would improve while for
> > others it would decline.
> > My premise is that most of those who were "haves" before the distribution
> > would manage to accumulate wealth, becoming "haves" again.
> > Of those who were "have nots" before the distribution, most would become
> > "have nots" again.
> > It is a completely different scenario than your "stimulus check" example, in
> > which there is no "equal footing" financially.
> >
> > Got it?
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:36 PM
> > To: <editor at lataheagle.com>; <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>;
> > <lfalen at turbonet.com>; <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
> >
> > > By Kai's commentary, the stimulus checks distributed these past few months
> > > must have created one MAJOR spark in the economy.
> > >
> > > Surprise, Kai. It has been shown by surveys and a multitude of analyses
> > > that the "have nots" have used their stimulus checks on such frivolous
> > > items as food, rent, and bills, while the "haves" . . . well . . . you
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Your thoughts?
> > >
> > > Tom Hansen
> > > Moscow, Idaho
> > >
> > >> Human nature is human nature.
> > >> Chances are, most of the "have nots" would blow their windfall
> > > purchasing
> > >> things they could have never afforded before.
> > >> Without thinking of the future, many people would blow right through it.
> > >> Once gone, they would wind up selling many of the things they purchased
> > >> because they didn't save any of it for neccesities.
> > >> Many of the "haves" would see opportunities and try to make the most of
> > >> their windfall, gaining wealth.
> > >> It has nothing to do with the "worst" or "best" in humans. It's just the
> > > way
> > >> it is.
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------
> > >> From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:51 AM
> > >> To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
> > >> <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
> > >> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
> > >>
> > >> > Yes, of course I read it -- did you read the 6/30 The Nation issue
> > > Keely
> > >> > mentioned in starting this topic?
> > >> >
> > >> > I disagree with the hypothetical conclusion in your hypothetical
> > > scenario.
> > >> > I also don't agree with the inherent assumption of the worst of
> > > humans --
> > >> > you sound almost Hobbesian. Sorry for not making that clear. To
> > > expand .
> > >> > .
> > >> > .
> > >> >
> > >> > I think the odds are good that in a wealth redistribution that some of
> > > the
> > >> > "have nots" would cherish the change, manage the money well, and truly
> > >> > remember from whence they came. In a wealth redistribution, I think
> > > the
> > >> > odds are good some of the previous "haves" would have no eye to the
> > > future
> > >> > and would soon be penniless . . . and need assistance.
> > >> >
> > >> > The difference in my hypothetical scenario & yours is that there are
> > > so
> > >> > many
> > >> > more "have nots" than "haves" that the eventual distribution of the
> > >> > redistribution would be better for the greater good and a net gain in
> > >> > quality of life for more. I'm not willing to assume the worst in a
> > >> > hypothetical based on the self-serving historical behavior of some of
> > > the
> > >> > "haves" and their failure to consider a common good and their fellow
> > >> > countrymen.
> > >> >
> > >> > I like to think we'd have no need to redistribute wealth if we each
> > > helped
> > >> > our sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons to
> > >> > improve
> > >> > their lots in life to the best of our abilities rather than just what
> > > we
> > >> > think they deserve. Nor would we likely need government safety nets
> > > for
> > >> > so
> > >> > many of our unfortunate were it not for the greed of the "haves."
> > >> >
> > >> > Altruistic Pollyanna is a name I'm far more comfortable wearing than
> > > Cynic
> > >> > Assuming Greed Trumps Good.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Kai Eiselein, Editor [mailto:editor at lataheagle.com]
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:01 AM
> > >> > To: Saundra Lund; 'lfalen'; 'keely emerinemix'; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
> > >> >
> > >> > Did you or did you not read my hypothetical scenario?
> > >> >
> > >> > --------------------------------------------------
> > >> > From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>
> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM
> > >> > To: "'Kai Eiselein, Editor'" <editor at lataheagle.com>; "'lfalen'"
> > >> > <lfalen at turbonet.com>; "'keely emerinemix'" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>;
> > >> > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The Nation, 6/30/08
> > >> >
> > >> >> Kai wrote:
> > >> >> "I would venture to hypothesize this: If wealth were distributed
> > > equally
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> every person, it would only be a matter of time before there would be
> > > the
> > >> >> "haves" and "have nots" once again."
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Good grief -- what do you mean "once again"?!?! That's how things
> > > are
> > >> >> now
> > >> >
> > >> >> .
> > >> >> . . hello!
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Saundra Lund
> > >> >> Moscow, ID
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
> > > to do
> > >> >> nothing.
> > >> >> ~ Edmund Burke
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through
> > > life
> > >> >> plus
> > >> >> 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
> > >> >> outside
> > >> >> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> > >> >> author.*****
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Kai Eiselein
> > >> > Editor, Latah Eagle
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Kai Eiselein
> > >> Editor, Latah Eagle
> > >>
> > >> =======================================================
> > >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > >> http://www.fsr.net
> > >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >> =======================================================
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > "We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
> > > students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."
> > >
> > > - Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> > > http://www.fsr.com/
> > >
> > >
> > Kai Eiselein
> > Editor, Latah Eagle
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> Kai Eiselein
> Editor, Latah Eagle
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list