: : : :
: : : : : As long as you can acknowledge that the rich and super-rich don't have to do any work, then we can move on. What this does, though, is focus the debate on property, not working to succeed or laziness or any such notion. Can you go along with that?
: : : : It focus' the debate on property if your definition of work doesn't include intellectual work, entrepreneurial work, creative rearranging present modes of production and the rewards attached to those activities.
: : : : Of course I include all that as work. The rewards that naturally follow, ie; wealth and property and prestige etc, are the consumers way of saying 'Thanx'.
: : :
: : : *Just curious professor, but where does 'being born wealthy' fit into your definition of 'hard work.'* --K
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : As long as the wealth was acheived legally that person has a right to do with it as he pleases. That's what private ownership means. Why did you use the adjective 'hard'?
: : Envy is so unbecoming.
: *??? Are you saying that the very concept of 'hard work' is unknown to you? No wonder you're so confused...
LLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!! That's rich! But let's assume your right. I don't know. Suppose you explain it to me? Let's pretend that I don't know. Tell me your experiences. What's your trade background?
: So if it's perfectly legal to pass on your acquired wealth (cash and property) to your progeny, how do you square this with your other comments which seem to say the focus of wealth distribution and acquisition should not be on property:
: "It focus' the debate on property if your definition of work doesn't include intellectual work, entrepreneurial work, creative rearranging present modes of production and the rewards attached to those activities."
: When the top two percentile own 90% of the wealth, property relations are precisely where the focus should be. QED old boy.* --K
Could you state your references on this claim?
QED, I love that kind of pretentiousness. Are you from Merry Old England?