Posts by Anthony Garcia19

Scott Hall39 said:Things are way more complicated than people think; there isn't just one single center of power. If money were the only thing that mattered, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution wouldn't even exist. Plus, no billionaire can actually compete with the raw power held by certain politicians. Look at Rockefeller and Standard Oil—that's a perfect example. Theodor Roosevelt stepped in and absolutely tore them apart. Their wealth was many times greater than anything any modern billionaire holds today. Then you have inheritance taxes, which systematically dismantled powerful dynasties like the Rothschilds—not to mention the Russian oligarchs hiding behind prison bars. Power sits in the hands of politicians, even if the balance of power is always shifting between them, the wealthy, and every other group in society.

This makes no sense. What exactly do you mean by that?

What I meant was that the core of this topic is really about hoarding wealth for oneself. It’s more about holding onto it than why someone wants it in the first place—whether that's greed, power, or insecurity—or even what you mentioned about having no specific motive at all (just money being a byproduct of doing work you love). Either way, it boils down to the main question: "Why do you need so much cash?" (that's the title, after all!). Why stack up such massive amounts that you could never actually spend?

A bit late on that one, though. Anyway, I'm off to grab some 🙂!

Scott Hall39 said:If all that matters is power, then politics is definitely the way to go.
Sure, money is just another form of power. But looking at it purely from a material standpoint, it isn’t hard to see why people always want more. You get used to comfort fast. Look at the current economic crisis. People are struggling because their standard of living is slipping back to what it was a few years ago—even though they were actually worse off back then. When your salary jumps from $50k to $100k, your lifestyle shifts. You start buying better clothes, eating at nicer restaurants, and so on. If you have $20 million, you don't have a private jet. Once you hit $100 or $200 million, suddenly you can afford one.
But it’s not just about the stuff. It's a mindset—that drive for new challenges and breaking records. Some of the wealthiest people out there live relatively modest lives, but they stay driven by the work itself.

You've got it wrong. Power lives wherever the money is. Politicians only hold a tiny slice of that influence—they just act as the middleman to carry out orders from the real centers of power.
You know, you actually have a point there. If you're broke, that's a real problem!

Some of the wealthiest people out there actually live pretty modestly. They aren't flashy; they just genuinely love what they do, and that passion is what keeps them moving forward.

As long as they keep all that cash for themselves, they’re exactly the "problem" we're talking about here.

placidwolf27 said:This isn't some debate about morality—nor is it a matter for a psychologist to untangle...

That isn't really an individual matter...
The issue doesn't lie within some fleeting cognitive-emotional lapse of an individual—nor does it stem from their specific psychological cravings for one thing or another—that's simply a given... a fundamental part of being human, much like the very anatomy of the individual itself...

The individual who accumulates wealth does so simply because that is their designated function within a framework designed specifically for accumulation—the system itself is engineered to ensure such outcomes...
He’ll just do whatever he can get away with... if that's even possible...

Nothing indirect can ever truly compel an individual in such a position to exercise any semblance of "responsible" stewardship over funds—not really...
Capital exists for one purpose alone—to grow. It is accumulated through whatever means prove most efficient for that expansion... Period. This concept of "responsibility"—whether we’re talking about corporate social responsibility, moral imperatives, or some vague sense of social sensitivity—simply isn't a functional variable in the equation. An individual might struggle with their own conscience, perhaps they cheated someone or made a mess of things and now they're feeling the weight of regret—but that internal turmoil doesn't change the fundamental mechanics of how the system operates... It remains indifferent to the soul of the actor.

"Responsible management" at that particular level—it implies a certain standard of collective accountability, organization, and discipline... or perhaps a system of penalties for those who fail to meet them. Or, more cynically, it suggests that absolutely no one is actually in charge at all...

In other words—the fundamental issue isn't that an individual shouldn't be tasked with accumulating wealth—the real failure lies in the total absence of anyone whose actual job it is to break their legs and strip them of every asset the moment they commit embezzlement. A few months in a federal penitentiary? That’s just a revolving door... it changes absolutely nothing about the systemic rot.

The fundamental issue—if we can even call it that anymore—is a complete and utter lack of awareness regarding the true "nature" of the work itself...
An act like that isn't just a mistake—it is a deliberate, calculated sabotage of an entire society...
The penalty ought to be strictly proportional... if we are truly aiming for any semblance of justice here.

So, it actually *is* a psychological issue, isn't it? 😉
At least for those who should be recognizing the full scope of this situation—and its impact on the country—but they won't. Instead, they hide behind legal loopholes designed specifically to protect the very people who caused the damage in the first place.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:It is like when a goat walks up and claims it isn't a goat. But it has horns and everything else, so you know it is lying and is indeed a goat. 🙂

These are just old folk sayings. Back when people lived on farms with livestock, everything was much more obvious. 🤣

Wise words! 🧐
Everything is so cluttered with different influences these days that we can't even see the forest for the trees. We're just wandering through reality like geese lost in a fog!

It’s kind of like "don't trust everyone," I guess... I’ve heard her say it somewhere before, but I can't quite wrap my head around what she actually means! 🤔

Bradley Wood3@

Oh, so that’s how you see it!
Sure, everyone says they're against it, but we'll see who actually steps up when things get real... 🙂

Bradley Wood3 said:Most "power players" would probably agree with you, though—mostly because nobody wants to admit they're narcissists or that they're just compensating for being insecure.
Look, I'm not out here judging anyone who doesn't act the way I think they should. Everyone has their own baggage.
Maybe I'd change, or maybe you would, or maybe any of us would if we were suddenly pulling in astronomical numbers.
Everyone claims they wouldn't go down that path, but let's be real—nobody actually knows how they'd behave when the money hits the bank. 🙂

So, you think they won't agree?😕

I get where you're coming from. I'm not judging anyone either. I was just sharing my take on why some people acquire and hold onto massive wealth. Insecurity and low self-esteem aren't things to judge. And sure, narcissism isn't exactly charming, but it's still human nature, right? If my posts sounded negative, it's just because I feel bad that material stuff becomes everyone's top priority—it's not great for the individual or for society at large. It wasn't meant as a judgment.

silverranger742 said:That’s your take, Zachary Mendoza2? I still don't see it your way.

I don't know where you stand politically, but even with all the complicated stuff shaping our economy and politics today, the will of the people is still just that—the will of the people.

Who in America would actually give up private property—the whole backbone of capitalism—voluntarily? Aside from people who don't own anything to begin with, I doubt anyone would. To me, that's the ultimate litmus test for what most Americans actually want (if we look past the voting process itself).

I'm no expert here, but as far as I know, "democratic socialism" doesn't actually get rid of private ownership. It’s more about incremental reform and regulation—basically just a slightly more social version of capitalism. Nobody is actually out there asking for collective ownership.

Hannah White2 said:Look, this is basically true most of the time—it’s just not something everyone can handle. That whole greed thing? It almost always stems from some deep-seated psychological issues, sure. But then you’ve got those people who actually get it—they realize that if they don't grab the cash themselves, someone else is just going to swoop in and snatch it up without even knowing what to do with it...

Yeah, but the big question is always: who gets to decide how money (or assets) should be handled? Since everyone thinks they're the chosen one, you end up with the more capable taking from the less capable. That naturally leaves the latter feeling pretty frustrated.

The truth is, being "more capable" can go either way. It could mean someone smart and selfless, or it could mean someone ruthless and selfish. Ultimately, who ends up holding the purse strings just determines how much resentment the people left empty-handed feel. But let's be real—that resentment is always going to be there.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Anthony Garcia19: I see your point. You lean toward socialism, whereas I have been pushing capitalism. It isn't that I favor it or believe in its perfection; it simply exists because the people demand it.
In my view, these are merely frameworks. A system itself is neither good nor evil. It is the individuals within it who possess character. There is no such thing as "fair distribution" if the people themselves aren't improved first. Since humans are inherently flawed—slow to learn and quick to forget—and since capitalism thrives on selfishness as its core value, my advice is this: acquire influence so you can provide for yourself and your loved ones. As for a global spiritual awakening or a more equitable society, forget it. Perhaps in another lifetime, or several generations from now. Today's generation won't make it happen. 😳

That's a pragmatic way to look at it! 🙂

I actually agree with almost everything, except for the idea that systems are neutral. Some systems nudge people toward doing good, while others push them down the wrong path. Focusing primarily on material gain for oneself, under the guise that it's necessary for personal freedom and prosperity, just leads to widespread greed and misery.

But, without a "better" human being, a better system won't work anyway. So—to repeat—I'm totally with you on this one!

wanderingcrane5 said:Look, there's nothing wrong with having stuff.
But let's be real: right now, it’s impossible to own anything without essentially taking it from someone else. That whole dynamic won't change until we actually invent Star Trek-style replicators and tap into basically infinite energy sources.
As it stands, anyone holding onto wealth—whether directly or indirectly—has taken it from somebody else.
That other person probably wasn't given the chance to sell their labor for what it was actually worth. Maybe they were just crushed by circumstances or stuck in a broken system where their hard work isn't valued.
Meanwhile, you’ve got the first guy who’s a master at selling hot air, doing practically zero actual work while raking in massive amounts of cash.

The fact that some talented, honest, and brilliant people never reach their full potential might have something to do with them lacking guts or drive, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. More likely, they failed because their efforts were suffocated by everyone else's desperate, cutthroat grab for power, where people don't care what methods they use to get ahead.

Suffocated doesn't even cover it. They're constantly being undervalued. Think about it: why is a farmer working the soil treated like nothing compared to some corporate middleman? Those middlemen are parasites that destroy actual value, yet they get paid through the nose. Farming is essential; it's a top priority for survival. So why does society treat that work like it's worthless?

In today's globalized world, that's pretty much the reality. One way or another, our work and everything we earn is tied to the labor of countless others, many of whom end up getting the short end of the stick because of unfair distribution.

Still, I don't think unlimited energy is the only fix (though it would definitely speed things up). I actually believe in people—in our spiritual growth and our ability to build a fairer system ourselves. 🙂

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Would it be better if nobody owned anything, leaving nothing to share?
And who should decide who gets what? Why do you believe someone else should make decisions instead of the individual? 😕

If you expect a mature person—someone capable of making their own choices and creating value for themselves and society—to follow a mandate rather than exercising their own freedom and autonomy, then you are essentially advocating for servitude, or perhaps mindless obedience🤷.

Similarly, you suggest they can change the world. But are his standards appropriate for everyone else? He alone decides that, no one else. Will his actions benefit others?

Bog handed the management of this world over to humans long ago. I cannot say whether a driver will make decisions that are safe for the passengers and other motorists, but I know things will not go well if there is no one behind the wheel.

The fact that some capable, honest, and intelligent individuals fail to reach their potential might stem from a lack of courage or fighting spirit, but it has nothing to do with a lack of desire for power. Rather, they failed because their efforts were stifled by others' excessive hunger for control, often through unscrupulous means.

Perhaps. But if you believe the problem lies with ruthless power-seekers who obstruct brave and intelligent people (who also desire influence) from reaching their potential, how can you simultaneously advocate for limiting personal achievement and decision-making freedom?

I don't understand how you can label people as small-minded while simultaneously claiming that freedom means having just enough for oneself, yet treating anything beyond that as something to be dismissed. What about the people you care for? What about those who truly deserve better?
It doesn't seem to occur to you that a powerful individual can actually create jobs, improve society for everyone, or fund researchers, charities, schools, healthcare, and local development. Is helping others really considered being "small-minded"?
I would call such a perspective selfish. 🤷

Looks like we had a bit of a misunderstanding!

I never meant, nor did I say, that it would be better if nobody owned anything. I was suggesting a different system than the one we have now—one where distribution isn't handled by powerful people with questionable morals. It would definitely be better if distribution were decided by a consensus of everyone who contributed through their work to create what is being divided (don't ask me how I envision that consensus working, because I don't know, but I believe it's possible once a society reaches a higher level of maturity).

So, I'm not denying an individual the right to freely build things for themselves and others. I'm questioning the right to unilaterally distribute what was acquired through
collective effort. Whatever someone earns strictly through their own solo work, they should be free to spend however they want.

You compared running the world to driving a bus. Sure, a bus has a limit on how many people it can carry, but there are many ways to manage a society. The current way, where a few financially powerful people call all the shots, isn't necessary, and it certainly isn't fair.

And regarding your last point... I think it's clearer now. You are free when you have enough to fully realize your potential as a human being, but everyone deserves that same freedom, not just a select few. Once you achieve that freedom as an individual (at least by that point!), you should step up and realize that almost everything you earn comes from working alongside others. Because of that, you should share it with them, rather than deciding alone who gets what, how much you keep, or how much you'll give away to charity.

Zachary Mendoza2 says:

Honestly, why wouldn't someone want power? The world is huge and filled with so much you can reach out and grab. There's plenty to enjoy. And when you actually have something, you can share it. You can actually change things.

Why frame it that way? Why assume it's a good thing for one person to hold everything just to decide who gets a slice and who doesn't? To me, that’s just pure ego. It's basically trying to play Bog.

Plus, you mentioned changing the world. Who's to say their standards are actually good for everyone else? They're the ones making the calls, and there's no guarantee their version of "better" works for the rest of us.

It really just comes down to having the guts to fight for it. Sadly, a lot of people lack that drive. They just retreat into their shells and accept being powerless. It's a shame, because I bet a lot of them could do great things if they actually stepped up.

Usually, people see those in charge as corrupt megalomaniacs, while those in charge look down on anyone unsuccessful as just being cowards.
I think that kind of resentment and class divide pushes a lot of decent, smart people in the wrong direction. They decide not to seek influence just so they don't end up becoming "them."

When capable, honest, and bright people fail to reach their potential, it might be due to a lack of grit, but I don't think it's because they don't want power. More often than not, they get crushed by others who are desperate for control and willing to use any means necessary to get it.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Power equals freedom.
It is possible you have never felt that need; many people never do. Most people's actual needs are quite modest. 🤷

It's true that power can buy you freedom, but you don't need to be powerful to be free. Financial independence is enough. Once you achieve that and keep stacking cash just for the sake of it, it's no longer about being free—it's about wanting to control others. That's where the hunger for power comes in.

So, saying people without a drive for power have "small needs" doesn't really track. If someone is chasing total personal autonomy, their needs aren't small. Honestly, craving power isn't a sign of big ambitions; it's just a sign of a small mind...

northernbadger4 said:I doubt I'll have much more to say on this, so maybe just let the curiosity go.

😢🙂

Bradley Wood3 said:Most people who land a big payday just can't seem to quit while they're ahead.
Once they hit a million, they’re already chasing two—hit two, and suddenly they’re plotting how to grab three...
Honestly, I don't think it's about actually needing the cash. It's more about that rush of power—it's addictive.

Power is an interesting thing.
I have to admit, I just don't get it. I've never felt that itch myself.
To me, finding joy in controlling others or pulling strings is just a sign of insecurity, low self-esteem, or narcissism. And honestly, that leads right back to what I said earlier about amassing massive wealth—hoarding way more than anyone could ever actually need.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Moral values are ultimately subjective matters.

Consider this line of reasoning:

The world should be guided by those who actually understand what they are doing, rather than just any random fool. Intelligent people make sound decisions; fools only make mistakes.
I consider myself intelligent—my track record proves it. I know exactly how I achieved my success through hard work, strategic thinking, and overcoming everyone in my path, including the best of them. Besides, everyone believes they are smart; why should I hold a different opinion of myself?
God created fools so that the intelligent would have someone to take money from. If that weren't the case, what would intelligence even be for? Without it, everyone would be equal, whether smart or not, and we know that isn't true. Even if equality were possible, it wouldn't be fair.
It is immoral to allow a fool to keep their money. If they hold onto it, they will only waste it on something stupid, whereas that capital could do something productive in the hands of someone smarter. In any case, someone more capable will eventually take it from them anyway; why shouldn't that person be me?
The more strictly I follow these undeniable moral principles, the better and greater a man I become. 👋

🙂

Exactly.

But Vivekananda only brought up criminal acts in his opening post—things like theft, fraud, or murder. That’s basically what our society views as the ultimate violation of the common good, so I stuck to that specific slice of morality.

If we were talking about morality in the broadest sense—the way it's actually defined—we'd be diving into your territory: whether it's moral to amass massive wealth legally. But honestly, that feels more like a Politics discussion than something for this thread.😉

northernbadger4 said:It’d be pretty tough to explain, honestly. It's complicated.

Basically, I'm talking about an organization dedicated to helping and protecting people. Think of it like the police, just... way better. Actually, compared to what I have in mind, the local PD would look like a preschool. 🙂

Now that sounds interesting! You've got me curious! 🙂

Andrew Sullivan8 said:I do. A little more than I really need. Though, "enough" is a subjective thing. To some people, it wouldn't be enough, and to others, it'd be way too much... ☕

Looks like most people missed the whole point of this thread...

The topic is about how people who already have massive wealth—money they could never actually spend (just look at those political scandals in the papers I mentioned earlier)—are willing to sacrifice moral values just to pile up even more money they'll never touch.

Hmm, it's a bit confusing. By linking massive wealth to morality (things like theft, fraud, or murder), it’s hard to tell where the focus actually lies—is it about the act of hoarding all that cash, or is it about throwing ethics out the window to get it in the first place?

Anyway, here are a few of my own thoughts on this. It's something I think about quite often...

Money buys a certain level of freedom and happiness, or at least makes them more likely. So, it's totally natural to want to earn and save until you hit that sweet spot. That specific number is personal, though. It really comes down to how much spiritual maturity someone has. After that, people usually grab a little extra as a "safety net" for emergencies. If the hoarding continues (just for themselves!) beyond that point, it's probably a psychological issue—maybe irrational fears or issues with self-worth. Psychologists would know better than me.

As for whether someone will turn to crime, fraud, or violence to get it? That depends entirely on their own ethical compass. Honestly, that has nothing to do with how much money they have or how much they're chasing.

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

You can't say the same for a distant relative of mine. When he finally came home from Alcatraz after three years, he was in such bad shape that when his wife opened the door, she actually asked, "I'm sorry, but who are you and what are you doing here?" He’d lost half his body weight and came back looking like a skeleton, basically an old man. And yeah, he was political—he was "one of them," just in all the wrong ways. 😢