Why do so many on the left hate success?

Somehow I can't help but think that you are expressing hero worship.

I've been involved in a few startups. Small manufacturers. Typically they start with 4-5 people who develop the product and market. As the company takes off, each of the originals takes over a section of the company, one in charge of production, one in charge of sales and marketing, one in charge of purchasing, one in charge of shipping, one in charge of new product development. The one who becomes president or CEO is either the one who has the best personality for it, or the one who put up the most startup capital. Without Steve Wozniak, there never would have been a CEO named Steve Jobs.

The whole thing about working hard is quite subjective. It seems to me that a large portion of the head of a company's job, is on the social side of things. You have to have good relations with vendors and customers alike. As well, one needs to motivate and keep on page with those within the company. On television, and in movies, leaders are often depicted as rulers not to be refused, full of threats and all. But that is typically not the case. It is a whole lot easier to get people to want to follow you with a carrot, than with a stick. A quick smile opens a lot of doors.

I've had plenty of long rambling conversations with heads of companies, planning strategies, product development directions, and the like. Even though the topics were work related, it was not like working. Not like the people in manufacturing work. Often it was more like hanging out with a friend and bouncing ideas off of each other. It seems to me that, that is how a lot of business is done. Why golfing is so popular. That is why, part of the hiring process of those at the top, includes a formal dinner, where one's social skills are judged.

 

One driver of wealth inequality is government regulation. The more regulation there is, the more opportunities there are for cronyism, influence-peddling and insider lobbying. Lefties wailing about growing inequality of wealth don't seem to want to talk about that.

 

In answer to the subject of this thread, because they are jealous.

 

Laughable. These are communist countries. The very definition of leftist socialist ideology. You try to vilify them as somehow not what you're looking for, but in the end, your socialism experiment always ends there. Socialism, especially european socialism isn't republic representative government, it's authoritarian and has demonstrated its likelihood to be so throughout N european history. Everywhere. From Spain, to Italy, to France, to Germany, To Greece, to Soviet Russia. Those are the examples you're wishing for. Both Norway and Sweden are still monarchies, are they not?

Y'all still haven't figured out what representative government is, or does, and instead, you use the socialist tyranny of your bureaucracies to manage the most mundane aspects of your existences. Not very far removed from traditional servitude and serfdom if you ask me. So tell us again about how your version doesn't always end up being run by dictators again?

 

Why? Because class envy and insinuating that anyone who has money must have done something illegal or dishonest to get it is a means to an end. Communism/socialism begins to take root by demonizing anyone who has more than you have.

 

Not to get into your ideology, but there is a reason that liberal countries are so much more happy than other countries. It may be genetic, in nature.



as all the happiest countries in the world seem to be of a single people and culture. And that is Nordic culture. It is where White people originated, as well as where liberal ideas arose. Within the genome, the genetic instructions that Nordic people blue eyes, blonde hair, and white skin, also gives them greater height, greater intelligence, and longer lifespans than other ethnic groups. It also caused a alteration in brain functioning.

Turns out, most people, and probably throughout history, when confronted with an unfamiliar or threatening situation, the emotional part of the brain comes alive, especially in the fear sections, and fires up the fight or flight response. This does not happen in the brains of many Nordic, and Germanic people in general, includeding the Anglo Saxon English. Has a lot to do with the behavior of the Germanic tribes who pushed back against the Roman armies, and the Vikings who terrified Europe.

The diminished emotional response, of many Nordic people is made up by Increases in the cerebral part of the brain. So instead of reacting with emotion and fear, these minds become curious. It is this mindset that eventually led to the Enlightenment which gave birth to liberalism, which gave rise to modernity.

It is no wonder that Scandinavians tend to be happier and healthier.

 

Wrong. He lost it all, and declared his businesses bankrupt.

 

You're a fool to translate happiness for freedom. It's the salve tyranny uses to enforce their tyranny. You should know this by now. And frankly, if you remove all responsibility from people so they can be "happy", have you done them a favor? The truth is that we are, very familiar with what socialism is, why it ultimately produces the devolvement that it does, and is never happy or successful. sad to see those who still pine for it though.

 

I'd say that freedom from the prospect of facing economic ruin through such a minor incident as your beater car breaking down, or getting sick for a couple of weeks, is pretty big freedom. Lot's of people in the US don't have that kind of freedom. Most people in Europe do.

 

Are you sure that what you've asked for is actually freedom? Don't you see the aspect of servitude that it masks? As in, the plantation rehires your labor so it provides your medical and transportation for you to make it easier for you to slave away for them. Are you truly free then?

 

Obviously I don't see things the same way as you.

 

Well, you must be right.. He did manage to build buildings and live the life of a billionaire on zero dollars! Although your statement just begs the question "WHY" would the democrats fight so hard to see his tax returns when all they have to do is get in contact with Turin the Trump finance specialist here on PF and save all that time and taxpayer money

 

If it makes you happy that others make your decisions for you, does it matter?

 

It's things and times like this I'm reminded of the eloi from the time machine and our soon to be tomorrows Democrat party..

 

Have to agree with you here. Their willful subversion of the US student population with their constant indoctrination curriculum and all... It's scary talking to recent high school grads these days. Worse, recent college grads.... They don't seem to know the difference between the fantasy and the real.

 

so are you making the argument that it's just genes or also due to form government; i.e., socialism = happiness? The latter breaks down very fast, many examples of that.

About happiness, it all has to to with GDP per capital. I just looked up the 'world's happiness report 2019' and what a coincidence, countries with highest GDP per capita are at the top.

Reality is that happiness comes from being educated, respecting each other, living a life of integrity where hard work is valued and economic prosperity. Whether the country is socialist or capitalist, it's the people that mostly matters. Obviously, these are two forms of government and some prefer one, others another one but it's the people that make a Country 'happy'. In theory, highly educated, respectful, curious, adventurous, hard working people can even be happy in a communist economic system. It would be hard but in theory possible, provided all inhabitants work hard and produce. Communism breaks down when you have many who do nothing living off others who actually do something. That's a hard pill to swallow for the people doing all the work to make Country advance. The right people can also be very happy in a capitalist system or socialist system. Now do an experiment. In one snap of your fingers, replace every person in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland with people from Haiti, Venezuela, Iraqis... and then try the same exact form of government. Guess what? the Country instantly becomes a disaster, a mess and misery soon prevails. That's because these people are less educated, less respectful of other's views, less tolerant, more ignorant and lazier.

but let me also point something out. The idea that Nordic model is pure socialism is a myth. Largely, nordic model is based on free market economics. Granted, higher taxes provide for a safety net and more generous entitlements but it's not the type of model many in US think it is, Nordic system values free market capitalism and isn't based on the idea that the successful and rich need to be punished and the lazy and poor, given 'free' stuff. It is a model largely created by an educated, highly advanced society, something we do not have in US. The more important point and this is really key, is that the Nordic model is mostly a product of decades of practicing free market capitalism, which allowed Nordic Countries to accumulate wealth, advance and get to a point where they could afford and correctly put in place an entitlement/safety net system that works. This system is threatened by a change in demographics, only the right mix can make it work. The key point is that practicing free market capitalism for many years was what allowed the Nordic model to be successfully implemented, it wasn't that the Nordic model created the advancement, prosperity to begin with, it was merely the fruits of free market capitalism that reached it's peak. We are nowhere close to that in US and this is why that system will fail in this Country. Our demographics and large population cannot adopt Nordic model and make it work like these Countries do. Try implementing Nordic model in Venezuela? how would that work out? My point again, the people make the system work, the system doesn't create the right people required to make it work.

 

Do they talk? Or did you have to use a smartphone? I love watching them "Couple's" eating out and the entire time they stare at the phone and never speaking to one another..

I actually feel real pity for them, best times of their lives and they spend it talking shlt with people on a phone while their partner stare at their phone

 

Good stuff, a diamond in the rough you are!

 

Why do Trump's fans get so energized about threads that are based on false premises? The bigoted statement above is absolutely ludicrous but it appeals to Trump's fans.

On the other hand, Trump's fans are scared to death about getting involved in what is happening today. Their hero is facing an impeachment inquiry, and do his fans get involved? Hell, no. The evidence is building against Trump, depositions are being released as we speak, and more witnesses are coming forward in public hearings.

Do Trump's fans defend him? Hell, no, For the most part, they stay away from discussions concerning Trump's impeachment. Instead, they involve themselves in this low level bigotry because it makes them feel good even though they know it is pure fantasy.

Why do they do that? Perhaps, it is education issue.

 

You seem to not understand communism. It is not about one group working and another mooching. That is just silly. In the USSR everybody had a job. I've been saying all along that the Nordic countries were not socialist. In fact Sweden is like the eighth largest industrial country while being the 20th in population. It is said that Swedish wealth began with the booty brought back from Viking raiders and traders.

The Nordic model is a public/private relationship. For instance roads are payed for from public funds, but the work is done by private companies, who bid for jobs.

Liberalism occured naturally in only one place, that is among Northern Europeans, which includes the Nordic countries, The Netherlands, Belgium, England, and Northern France. Except for French, the languages of all these people are quite close. Likewise, these are the only countries, besides the US, Canada and Australia, who fully embrace liberal democracies.

The countries of Central and South America are not liberal democracies. They operate more on the all for one and one for all mode of governance, which is an outgrowth of their ancestorial past. In much the same manner, liberal democracies have also failed to take root in the Middle East, Africa or Southeast Asia.

Is it genetic, that is hard to tell. However if you looks at the ethnicity of the US, one discovers an interesting pattern. The Bible Belt is mostly Scots/Irish, and the northern Midwest and Northwest have high concentrations of Scandinavians and Germans. New England is mostly English.

Country music began as Scottish folk music. What I am saying is that the most strongly liberal parts of the country are ethnically different from the most strongly conservative areas. They even have different musical tastes. And I am only talking White people.

 

It is the conservative way. When one listens to conservative commentators, they often begin with a false premise, like the left hates success. Or liberals want others to work while they just sit at home and suck off the wekfare teat.

I'm not sure if it is an educational thing, as many seem to know better. It seems to me it has more to do with that over riding urge many conservatives have to trash talk others, especially liberals. It might be a dishonesty thing, but I think that hatered tends to blind one to reality.

 

You think they won't move there?

 

(1) 'Hate' seems a rather disingenuous term to use. I don't know anyone who 'hates' the rich for being rich...but I know plenty who hate how the rich commonly behave and conduct themselves, and do so simply because of the leverage power of their wealth. Likewise, we find poor people who hate other poor people for various reasons...and rich people who hate other rich people for various reasons. The rich seem to have built a rather robust stigma and reputation, carried throughout history, of getting to the top by screwing/dominating/torturing/killing people, abusing & destroying natural resources, cheating, lying, starting wars, lacking empathy, sadistic behavior, elitism, bigotry, being 'untouchable', and so on. Can we blame anyone for their distrust, suspicions, even paranoia of the rich? Hell, often the rich are better alert to the true nature & proclivities of their own peers than are the poor who tend to be more trusting. Keep in mind, throughout history it has been the wealthiest who ruled nations with brutality, who triggered/fomented conflict & wars, enslaved & murdered its citizens, silenced critics/dissenters, suppressed & censored knowledge, spoiled natural resources, and created widespread division through fear-mongering.

So it would seem your argument would make more sense the other way around: it is the rich that are more likely to hate the poor. Why? Because it is the poor that would like a more equitable management and distribution of, and access to the nation's wealth, land, and natural resources. It is the poor that would like more funding for education, health, environmental protection, housing, clean energy, and social programs. And all this takes money away from the rich...the rich being the most disproportionate welfare (tax dollars) recipients in the country with their tax cuts, tax loopholes, lobbying powers, capital & political cronyism, corporate protections, corporate subsidies, bailouts, interest rate manipulations, research grants, intellectual property protections, anti-union measures, Supreme Court rulings giving greater powers & protections to corporations & wealth, and so on. In order for the rich to become filthy rich, the rest of the nation's people must suffer and sacrifice. It's the way things have always been.

Now, is it any wonder that the rich have a stigma & reputation of being morally bankrupt? In fact, British psychologist, Kevin Dutton, made a list of the top 10 jobs where one will find the most psychopaths (as defined). CEO was number one.
https://www.businessinsider.com/professions-with-the-most-psychopaths-2018-5

And, to further the point...here is a video interview of Chris Hedges entitled, "The Pathology of the Rich".


Also consider organized crime. Certainly the chiefs of organized crime rings/crime families are millionaires, if not billionaires. Should we look up to them for their success? How many others attained their 'self-made' status in unscrupulous ways? Even if some started out earning an honest living running a business, it wouldn't take much for the money to go to their head to the point where they'd begin to act dishonestly, cutting corners, committing fraud, screwing their workers, abusing resources, lobbying (bribing) politicians, and so on. We see this time and time again. The more money they make, the more they want, the greater the likelihood for unscrupulous behavior and white collar crime.

(2) We need to ask how they became 'self-made' millionaires. The following researcher discovered that the so-called 'self-mades' fit into 3 categories: the savers, the executives, and the entrepreneurs. The first two are salaried/wage earners & risk-averse...while the last is not.
https://www.businessinsider.com/types-of-self-made-millionaires-2017-11

Another article dispelling the myth of self-made billionaires. The author details how most of the so-called self-mades did not go from rags to riches, but began with strong advantages in their upbringing...namely family station, connections, and opportunities distinct to their class upbringing.
https://www.damemagazine.com/2018/07/17/the-self-made-billionaire-is-a-myth/

This is also supported by Dr. Tom Stanley in his book, "The Millionaire Next Door", where he states that 20% of millionaires became wealthy through inheritance, while the remaining 80% were 1st-generation rich (meaning, they grew up wealthy & privileged, but were not given a sizeable inheritance).

(3) The percentage of 'self-made' billionaires is far less. Certainly it becomes progressively easier and exponentially lucrative to make money the more one has. Someone earning a few hundred thousand annually can turn that into a million if appropriately invested/used/saved. This doesn't necessarily take hard work...just ambition, a little cleverness, and a little luck (being in the right place at the right time). It then becomes easier to turn those millions into billions...especially with the greater ease in obtaining business & real estate loans, as well as the political leverage that comes with having such wealth.

(4) Why do the rich commonly assume or claim that the poor or lower middle class are lazy? Look around and you will find very hard working non-millionaires laboring long hours, and paid wages far below what they're worth. Even non-millionaire white collar workers who earn a good wage typically work long, hard hours. If it were not for the working class there would be zero millionaires. And there's a reason why they're called the 'working class'. They do all the real, hard work necessary to make any business a success.

(5) Let's also clarify a point that needs to be made. The term 'self-made millionaire' refers only to the accumulation of money. That is, the person in question was clever (or lucky) enough to find a way to channel more money to himself...whether it be by invention, academic talent (high-paying job), business/investment prowess, luck, connections, or a combination. It tells us nothing about the degree to which that wealth was truly EARNED.

For example, what if I point you to a 'self-made' millionaire who made his wealth by manufacturing & selling wooden pencils. Now, do you think this millionaire could build enough pencils (even just a single pencil) on his own from scratch and sell them...all without benefit of laborers, machinery, technicians, engineers, tree loggers (for wood), graphite miners, truckers/cargo transporters, oil & gas station workers, truck manufacturers, warehousing, security, insurance, office products manufacturers, accountants, marketing personnel, HR workers, secretaries, corporate lawyers, city infrastructure, city utilities, bank workers, and so on? Unless you build it with your own hands, you didn't earn anything. Your earnings rest on the shoulders of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of laborers, office workers, and engineers in this and other nations. If anyone should be paid with millions, it should be those who the nation cannot live without: the laborers, farmers, educators, healthcare professionals, scientists, engineers, and technicians.

This is what Obama (no, I'm not an Obama follower) was talking about in this excerpt from a speech he gave in July of 2012:

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges--if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."