Why do some people need so much money?

wanderingcrane5 said:The thing is, nobody would even care about this crisis if it were just about paychecks shrinking. This whole situation is a nightmare because people are losing their jobs entirely. That isn't just a drop in living standards; it's an absolute catastrophe. You can't save anything when you're starting from zero. You can't live on zero. And there's no such thing as a paycheck lower than nothing.

Just look at the unemployment rates from 2003 compared to where we are today!

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.

Anthony Garcia19 said: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.

In reality, we're looking at virtually identical segments of the population—they just differ by their chosen career paths or current roles. It's nothing more than a social division of labor; some hold political sway, others control the finances, while some manage physical resources, information, or technology... there is a constant, shifting tension among them, much like any other group, yet they compete individually while maintaining their collective status through organization... it's all quite logical, really...

Anthony Garcia19 said: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.

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.

Anthony Garcia19 said: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.

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

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?

state power is the linchpin
without the state, capitalism simply cannot function—in a sense, the government provides the fundamental infrastructure that prevents the whole system from collapsing... it's through laws and direct interventions that the market is kept upright; corporations and banks are essentially just service providers, warehouses, and processing plants within that framework.

that being said, we are still talking about the same ruling class—even if their influence is spread across multiple centers of power, and even if specialized elites compete for control over that power...

the key to understanding this entire dynamic is realizing that the tracks and the train, much like the signals and the switches—and everyone operating them—are all part of the exact same system. Even if a train derails occasionally here or there, the entire mechanism works in unison to keep everything moving toward its intended purpose...

Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.

In a setup like this, the President isn't just some mindless puppet—he’s a vital operator sitting at the center of everything. Behind him stands an entire organization performing critical functions; we're talking about a homogeneous system here. In this kind of structure, nobody is really "buying" anyone or acting as a mere "servant"—it's simply a division of labor. Within this framework, corporate directors and big-bankers serve the system just as much as they are bought by it... money is merely the tool, the capital used to grease the wheels.

Just look at how Berlusconi runs Italy...
A hundred of his people rotate through nearly every major position in the country—from Parliament and the executive branch right down to the lead corporations. He even has his own banks—believe me—and controls half the media landscape.

At that level, no one bothers asking who is a politician and who is something else entirely. They all have their designated spots within the organization and perform their roles; one month they might be shuffled around to become CEOs, and a month prior they were sitting in Congress... they couldn't care less.
That's what you call rotation—and in their world, political positions are just as much a tool as cash or media control... you can't have one without the others.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.

Well, John D. Rockefeller shouted too! So what if the Rockefellers are still around? The Roosevelts are still around too! These stories about American presidents serving oil companies and big capital are nothing but pure conspiracy nonsense from people who can't grasp that the world is far too complex to be boiled down to such banal relationships. They try to simplify everything. Either it's just mindless political ideology—Marxist or leftist rambling.

placidwolf27 said:state power is the linchpin
without the state, capitalism simply cannot function—in a sense, the government provides the fundamental infrastructure that prevents the whole system from collapsing... it's through laws and direct interventions that the market is kept upright; corporations and banks are essentially just service providers, warehouses, and processing plants within that framework.

that being said, we are still talking about the same ruling class—even if their influence is spread across multiple centers of power, and even if specialized elites compete for control over that power...

the key to understanding this entire dynamic is realizing that the tracks and the train, much like the signals and the switches—and everyone operating them—are all part of the exact same system. Even if a train derails occasionally here or there, the entire mechanism works in unison to keep everything moving toward its intended purpose...

If you don't have a state, people's rights are totally vulnerable, so your argument falls apart. You can't just force reality into a narrow little box and call it the truth!

Scott Hall39 said:Well, John D. Rockefeller shouted too! So what if the Rockefellers are still around? The Roosevelts are still around too! These stories about American presidents serving oil companies and big capital are nothing but pure conspiracy nonsense from people who can't grasp that the world is far too complex to be boiled down to such banal relationships. They try to simplify everything. Either it's just mindless political ideology—Marxist or leftist rambling.

Tell that to the children in Iraq.

Scott Hall39 said:If you don't have a state, people's rights are totally vulnerable, so your argument falls apart. You can't just force reality into a narrow little box and call it the truth!

Which thesis exactly?

Are you suggesting the state is the essential foundation upon which society organizes its laws—and by extension, property, the market, and individual rights?

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.

This is pure nonsense.😁

It is an illusion to even suggest that a single individual can possess real power.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Tell that to the children in Iraq.

Look, buddy, do your homework first. Come back when you can actually name which oil companies are operating in Iraq. This whole argument falls apart if ExxonMobil—which I assume is just the secret successor to Standard Oil—wasn't keeping Bush in their pocket the whole time. 🙄
But hey, that’s off-topic anyway.

placidwolf27 said:Which thesis exactly?

Are you suggesting the state is the essential foundation upon which society organizes its laws—and by extension, property, the market, and individual rights?

No, I agree with that. But those benefits aren't reserved just for the "classes" you keep talking about; the whole of society benefits. To claim otherwise is just a blatant lie.

There is a mix of off-topic chatter, trolling, and genuinely useful content here. 🙂
But that is merely my own perspective; we shall see how the moderators view it. 😘

Scott Hall39 said:No, I agree with that. But those benefits aren't reserved just for the "classes" you keep talking about; the whole of society benefits. To claim otherwise is just a blatant lie.

Are you suggesting that calling it a "distortion of truth" is what happens when any specific demographic—no matter how fractured they might seem internally—seizes power and begins governing solely to serve their own interests and those of their allies? They do it systematically, of course, by leveraging the political infrastructure and institutionalized power handed to them...

Look, let's move past the conspiracy theories and the big oil companies for a moment. Just look at your own government—the most basic level of things. Wherever you happen to be living right now, somewhere in the States, surely you aren't too far from home...

The benefits of having an orderly, functional system could potentially extend to everyone involved in it—that part isn't even up for debate. The real question—the one that actually matters—is the nature of the system itself...

I went back and read your earlier post where you claim that the wealthy and politicians are basically one and the same. Honestly, things aren't that simple. There are way more players involved, though you're right about one thing: they’re constantly at each other's throats. You've got party against party, internal power struggles, industry versus industry, and endless competition within sectors. It’s a mess of partial interests all fighting for a seat at the table. You can't just boil everything down to a bunch of rich politicians. A politician has to play nice with the public during elections—back in Victoria's era, a 5% tax rate would have been considered insanely high, just look at how far we've come since then. The Church holds power. Voters hold power. Various ideologues hold power. The academic community holds significant power. Unions have power. And then there's the media. The media is an interesting example because even though they're mostly owned by massive corporations in most developed nations, plenty of research suggests a lean toward leftist ideas. Granted, it's still within the capitalist system—what Americans would call "liberal"—but looking at the big picture, it's a direct hit against the wealthy elite!

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 🙂!

Anthony Garcia19 said: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 🙂!

The bottom line is fear.

Scott Hall39 said:If you don't have a state, people's rights are totally vulnerable, so your argument falls apart. You can't just force reality into a narrow little box and call it the truth!

Look, if that's the case, then us just surrendering ourselves to the global market while having a weak government that doesn't even protect us—or more accurately, one that tries to protect us now but faces massive pushback from every single corporate lobbyist out there—basically means we're sitting ducks.