Why do so many on the left hate success?

You are projecting again, reading into my post what I didn't write.

I never said that I hate CEOs.

I never said that CEOs don't work hard, I am sure most do. So does the single mom who works two minimum wage jobs to sustain her family.

In contrast to your projection, I made a purely economic argument, namely that the economy is made of a cycle with two legs, supply and demand. If the economy is limited by demand, which has been the case for the US economy for decades (don't take my word, economists like Stiglitz have written books about it), it makes no sense to continue supply side economic policy. It will only increase demand limitation of the economy, just slowing the overall economic cycle (or prevent it from growing as fast as it could).

Now, you could assume this is envy for the rich, which is a purely emotional argument, not based on facts. In contrast, I feel sorry for the career-driven folks who work 80 hours a week and need nannies to raise their kids. They may have the money, but on their death bed, you rarely hear people saying "I wish I would have worked 85 instead of 80 hours per week". What they say is: "I wish I had spend more quality time with loved ones".

 

straw man. There are some on the left who are rich and successful and some on the right who are losers and poor. I'm speaking about numbers, where the majority of certain groups are. The left i speak of is the left i see on the media, the TV anchors of CNN, MSNBC, the guests they bring on the set and politicians like Bernie sanders, AOC, Elizabeth Warren. I'm also talking about the leftists i know. What do i hear them spew all the time? Bank CEOs this, corporate CEOs that. Koch is the devil, Bezos too, Mark Z. is a demon. 'The US is an oligarchy, we need to tax the rich'. There is disdain for successful people like CEOs etc... yet i see them go through great lengths to defend the poor. Much of what i hear is not based on merit or character, it's solely based on what you are worth. To many on the left, a thug dealing drugs on the streets of Chicago should be protected and not called a super predator, he/she is a victim of society, who the upper class control? Get it? They even bash the cops and bash ICE, you have city majors of leftwing cities refusing to cooperate with ICE agents and allowing dangerous illegal criminals to roam freely. Yet what are the views of these very same people about a person like Charles Koch? or just the average bank CEO? disdain, hate. Doesn't matter if the millionaire CEO got there by working hard and employing thousands and doesn't matter if he/she is a person of character who gives to charity. None of this matters. The final straw for me is when hear Bernie talking about allowing criminals in jails to vote. He vilifies people like Charles Koch as the devil incarnated but wants to give rapists, murderers right to vote. These people don't even have right to freedom but Bernie wants them to vote? imagine if they one day vote to be freed? This is absurdity, Bernie seriously hates someone like Koch more that a violent criminal, why? Koch has money, the violent criminal usually doesn't.

really? look around, liberals love hollywood and entertainers. They are heroes of the left.

you don't fear success, you just don't want to accept that most who succeed more than you do it through working harder, taking bigger risks or/and having more talent. You fail to comprehend that everyone has the opportunity to be a bank CEO, a business owner and if they decide to just make a salary at a 8-5 job, that's their decision and they are accountable. Attacking those who are at the top because you couldn't make it to the top, but they could, doesn't make sense.

 

Obviously, you have seen poverty up close and the dignity of those that struggle to improve the lives of their children.

 

back peddling now? What was the overarching theme of your arguments? CEOs make too much $$, employees and consumers not. You clearly were complaining about the disparity or what was the point of your post? have the courage to follow through on what you really believe in.

the 'emotional' argument you allude to is based on facts, unless everything i hear by leftwing media, their guests and leftwing politicians is them lying about what they believe in? they don't really mean any of it? Also speaking of leftiwingers i know, they have disdain for the ultra rich. Let's not pretend there is not an ever growing leftwing base who simply absolutely hates the upper class, for no reason other than 'they' can't make it to the top, mostly due to their own inadequacies.

 

I'm aware of the U.S. and it's success!

I can't respond to your post because I don't know what you are referring to. What part of my post is "demonstrably not true"?

 

Can't address the argument I made, so you go back to accusing me of "hating" or "disdain" for CEOs.

Look, I don't deny that CEOs work hard and have skills that I don't have. That doesn't mean one can't criticize the supply-side policies that favor the CEOs over the regular worker. Again, it's an economic rather than an emotional argument, no matter how hard you try to inject emotion back into it.

 

I was made to go out and get it. I always went out and got it for myself. I always had the mindset of continuous improvement and betterment of myself.

Without rich CEO's I would not have had a job that paid 5X minimum wage, and in flyover country at that.

What the CEO made was none of my concern. I was born poor and lowly, and charity began in my own house for me and mine. I was responsible for going out and getting it.

 

I've never been a Democrat. But I have always been a liberal. The Democratic party has long been, basically two parts. I like to refer to them as the intellectual Democrats, who are mostly liberals, and the welfare Democrats who are mostly Progressives. The liberals think that it is a good idea to get vaccinated, the progressives have their doubts.

However the Republîcans embrace evangelism and deny science, a deal breaker.

 

Sweden and Norway come to mind, as countries with a lot of bureaucracy. It seems that they do a lot better than those "$#!+ hole" countries Trump complains about, which have no real bureaucracies.

And isn't this a thread about CEOs? No one builds a successful company without also creating what is essentially a bureaucracy to support it. If one takes a look at the structure of large corporations, there are large numbers of people who seem to do little more than push paper around. Yet, without the paper pushers nothing gets done. Without this army of paper pushers, a CEO doesn't get a lot done.

A good CEO, or president, for that matter, is one who knows how to work the bureaucracy to achieve one's goals. This is what is meant by taking charge of the levers of power.

 

I've had the type of career that was built upon projects. Good projects usually ended with a hefty bonus at the end. Which meant, that I had plenty of opportunities to take several-month-long vacations, throughout my life. You only live once, so enjoy it while you can.

 

I was lucky too. I am getting close to financial independence (means that I have enough assets to retire any time I like). Financial independence has actually increased my joy for work (research and teaching), because the stress is gone. If I don't want to do something at work, I can say NO easily. In addition, I can focus on work that is interesting instead of focusing on the money only.

What people who complain about taxing the rich don't take into account is behavioral economics. If someone has won the game, they can stop playing any time. Giving the rich tax breaks is like giving the football team that is leading every game 50:5 additional draft picks. We all know what happens in those games. The winners will start taking it easy.

 

yes, run away...

 

I think you see things the same way I do.

Such as why I identify as a libertarian. I am not religious, and support science, but disagree with the foundational concepts of the progressive movement. Financially, I don't think the "welfare democrats" have any stinking idea what actually happens economically in reality.

 

Remind me again, what their populations are? And just for the record, why not invoke other places, like Soviet Russia, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or China? Those are vastly more akin to what you wish would happen. Sweden and Norway have a very stratified social/economic structure. why pic them? Is that your goal?

 

The end doesn't justify the means. "Success" is meaningless in itself; it is how it was earned.

 

there is a lot corporate bureaucracy but at least corporations provide a service or produce a product, for profit. Profits hold people accountable so if you are a CEO who does a poor job, you are fired.

meanwhile, government usually manages other people’s money and they are not really accountable for making money, which makes their standard of efficiency and productivity very very low. Also, the bigger an institution is, the more the bureaucracy and there is no company or corporation remotely close to being as big as government. So we have a massive beast with immeasurable bureaucracy run by people who are seldom held accountable for the same efficiency and productivity as someone in private sector. Yeah, it’s behemoth of waste my friend.

 

Colarado will regret that decision, when hoards of out-of-staters come for free but worthless degrees.

I'm all for free university, but only for identified courses leading directly to well paid full-time employment in current and future high demand fields.

 

Excellent observation!

 

Post of the week!

 

Good. Hold those feet to the fire!

 

Typically they don't. CEO skill sets especially at the upper end of the spectrum are exceedingly rare. And the spectrum is very broad. Not every successful manager of a 5 million dollar company can manage a 50 million company and so it goes right up the line. CEOs get paid those bucks because the life of the company and thousand of men and women working for it depend on the decisions they make.

 

I have no problem with government providing essential things that allow anyone to get cheap healthcare or obtain a good education. No American should go bankrupt and suffer financially because of a sickness and no American should be denied access to affordable quality education. The problem is that government is an organism that grows and grows, it's tentacles multiplying and extending throughout every sector, every crevice, it has no end, nothing is off limits. We have way too many regulatory bodies, way too many regulations, way too many agencies that are inefficient and ineffective. This is why Americans are very weary of paying taxes, probably 70c of every dollar is mismanaged and can be put to better use.

Guarantee cheap/free healthcare for those in need? sure
Military for national defense? sure
Guarantee cheap/free education? sure
ss? sure


everything else? largely a waste and mismanagement of $$ that we can do without. Protect us from foreign threats, guarantee us healthcare and education, ensure retirees are taken care of, stop there.

 

The Soviet Union, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and China were/are run by dictators, which are right wing. Sweden and Norway are democratic republics which are left wing. After all, the whole world was right wing and conservative, until the the rise of Northern European thought, which is where liberal ideas came from.

 

What is there to regret. You have to live there to get the benefits. When I went to CU, I had to show them a few years of my parents' income tax returns, to prove I came from Colorado.

 

And? Does anyone deny that CEOs have skills they are paid for? Does anyone deny that they work hard? I haven't seen that.

I also haven't seen a coherent argument against the issue that CEOs lose their paycheck if consumers don't make enough money to buy their products. That's the inevitable endgame of ever increasing income and wealth inequality. Let them eat cake won't be a good argument against people starting to stand up for themselves, as it hasn't been in the past.