Rental Property Investor · Larkspur, CO · Member since 2018 · 198 posts · 179 votes
Perhaps I have an inner socialist I’m not aware of, but I have to ask the community, when is enough enough as it pertains to number of units owned?
How often they ask on the podcasts “where are you going from here?” And the answer is something like “oh, we plan to have 500 doors” or 1500, or whatever. To me that qualifies as greed if I’m speaking honestly. Why on earth would you want so many units!? I can see it if they’re lower income apartments and/or you’re syndicating, bit that’s not what I’m talkig about here.
Another case in point; Invitation homes. 82,000 units they own and rent! Ridiculous.
The world would be a better place (I’d argue) if so many weren’t trying to commoditize or hoard everything. Honestly, that’s 20,500 families who could otherwise gain substantial financial stability through owning four rental properties each. I hate the concept of “fairness” and all that is embodied by socialism, but at some point this sort of behavior shoud fall under antitrust laws and be illegal. At some point I’d think that there’s a reasonable (high) standard of living and anything beyond that is just sheer excess. It’s as if we as a society don’t want a solid middle class. Why not step aside at some point and let the next guy have a little easier time of it? Seems the right mentality.
Investor · Columbus, GA · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
8y
@David S. if you feel that being very wealthy automatically makes someone greedy or evil, then it is highly unlikely that you will ever achieve wealth. So, you don't have to worry about how much is enough because you will stop sooner than later. For me, being very wealthy means security from evil and greed. I do not have to be a victim of someone else because wealth give me choices. If at some point I gain so much wealth that I cannot possibly spend it, then there isn't much else to do except give lots of money away. The super rich don't just give money to charity, they start charitable foundations. You will have a hard time finding wealthy people who don't give. You can't give what you don't have, so being poor is not more noble. Socialism only benefits the government, not the people.
Rental Property Investor · Dayton, OH · Member since 2015 · 79 posts · 85 votes
8y
@David Smit, greed is a condition of a person heart. If some entity has 1000 units, there has to be a large team/company involved in managing. There is a huge benefit when investors get involved in property. In my hometown of Dayton, Ohio, there are all kinds of properties, some that have been neglected and in need of updates. When investors get involved, they generally get updated then sold or rented. Those involved in managing this effort are employed. This is a service to a community. I wouldn't be too quick to judge. I bet most of those who are greedy, get tripped up in their own greed and don't make good businessmen. The best view their business as a service.
"Why do you keep going back to percentages? I've never spent a "%" in my life."
@Joe Villeneuve Because metrics help mankind grasp concepts Joe. I hope you don't carry this mentality over to your investing; I have to believe you don't.
I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that the poor person who gives 10% IS giving more than the person who's rich and giving 9%. Do you seriously regard people by the depth of their pockets or by the depth of their character?
So now you're deciding who's "depth of character" is the deepest?
The problem I see here is you are looking at this from one side...the side of who's giving, and how much it hurts. Looking at it from the other side, the impact the numbers have on those receiving it, I would say that 3% of $1M ($30,000) is worth more to those on the receiving side, than $10 of $50,000 ($5,000).
What has a greater impact in this discussion? The act, or the results? How do we measure the value of the "parts" in that impact? By expecting the giver hurt more, or by making the receiver hurt less?
"Why do you keep going back to percentages? I've never spent a "%" in my life."
@Joe Villeneuve Because metrics help mankind grasp concepts Joe. I hope you don't carry this mentality over to your investing; I have to believe you don't.
I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that the poor person who gives 10% IS giving more than the person who's rich and giving 9%. Do you seriously regard people by the depth of their pockets or by the depth of their character?
So now you're deciding who's "depth of character" is the deepest?
The problem I see here is you are looking at this from one side...the side of who's giving, and how much it hurts. Looking at it from the other side, the impact the numbers have on those receiving it, I would say that 3% of $1M ($30,000) is worth more to those on the receiving side, than $10 of $50,000 ($5,000).
What has a greater impact in this discussion? The act, or the results? How do we measure the value of the "parts" in that impact? By expecting the giver hurt more, or by making the receiver hurt less?
For the sake of the argument assuming all other factors are equal, yes, I am deciding who's character is deepest. Drawing on the person's potential other character attributes is an insincere argument in this context.
Obviously the richer man's finances make a bigger impact at 3%, but what if he too gave 10% seeing that the poor man gave 10% as well? THAT is the relevant question. At no point did I say that wealth is wrong. I said that greed is wrong when one accumulates for little other reason than to have more. If anything the richer man has more disposable income in both hard dollars and as a percentage of income. Apples to apples there's really no reason he shouldn't be out-giving the poor man on both fronts handily.
@David Smit, greed is a condition of a person heart. If some entity has 1000 units, there has to be a large team/company involved in managing. There is a huge benefit when investors get involved in property. In my hometown of Dayton, Ohio, there are all kinds of properties, some that have been neglected and in need of updates. When investors get involved, they generally get updated then sold or rented. Those involved in managing this effort are employed. This is a service to a community. I wouldn't be too quick to judge. I bet most of those who are greedy, get tripped up in their own greed and don't make good businessmen. The best view their business as a service.
Mark
I like that perspective Mark, especially the last part regards most who are greedy tripping themselves up, thanks!
Flipper/Rehabber · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 732 votes
8y
@David S. , what should the allowed number of units be? I'm sure many people might think owning more than the property one lives in is greedy. "Why do you need more? Can't you just be happy with one house?"
What are reasonable needs? Facebook recently approved $10 million a year in security for Mark Zuckerberg and his family. $10 million is more than generations of families make in their lifetime. But in his world it's a 'reasonable need'.
Maybe someone wants to have 4 kids and send them all to whatever college they want to go to .
Maybe someone wants to make millions so they can travel wherever they want , eat whatever they want. Maybe one wants to do it so they can donate it all. I think it just can get messy when we try to define what is a reasonable limit of wealth one is to have. Everyone's dreams and goals are different so who are we to judge?
Also should flipping be limited too? You can only flip X homes per year?
@David S. , what should the allowed number of units be? I'm sure many people might think owning more than the property one lives in is greedy. "Why do you need more? Can't you just be happy with one house?"
What are reasonable needs? Facebook recently approved $10 million a year in security for Mark Zuckerberg and his family. $10 million is more than generations of families make in their lifetime. But in his world it's a 'reasonable need'.
Maybe someone wants to have 4 kids and send them all to whatever college they want to go to .
Maybe someone wants to make millions so they can travel wherever they want , eat whatever they want. Maybe one wants to do it so they can donate it all. I think it just can get messy when we try to define what is a reasonable limit of wealth one is to have. Everyone's dreams and goals are different so who are we to judge?
Also should flipping be limited too? You can only flip X homes per year?
I admit, all good and fair points Joseph.
I'm going to take a step back and admit that the government should not regulate this. I would have been wiser to not make the antitrust comment in my original post, nor do I feel that's a reasonable course of action nor the government's business. I do feel that there may very well come a point where that could be an interesting point of discussion with regards to the corporate side of things, such as the 82k units I had mentioned. We're certainly not there yet however.
A better way of putting it would have been to say that one should really consider their motives in scaling up as much as possible, even after they've attained significant scale. My heart in this is not a socialistic ideal but rather a simple discernment of what's a good for the community/society. We're so incredibly focused in this nation on dollars and success, titles and achievements, we often forget we're in it together. There's certainly an underlying motive of greed prevalent in the world and this industry is not immune to it; and for that reason I ask, when is enough enough? I'm not calling every person with more than X doors greedy, I'm asking them to question their motives to ensure they're not, because I assure you there are many who are. That's just the human condition. Always has been, always will be. There are plenty who do things to help raise up their communities, and of course naturally when you get into apartment complexes large numbers come with the territory, but so does syndication which tends to water those numbers down again.
In the end of the day one obviously needs to self regulate their goals, intentions, etc. I hope to at least get some thought going on why we do what we do especially when some have long attained their initial goals. The motives are important to say the least.
And finally, I do still find it somewhat ironic that many highly successful investors want to sincerely help others out in their real estate paths, yet they'd be the first one to jostle over the next property that comes up for sale. That makes sense when one is still early in the game or mid stream, but why do that when you don't need to? I'm struggling to wrap my mind around that one.
"Why do you keep going back to percentages? I've never spent a "%" in my life."
@Joe Villeneuve Because metrics help mankind grasp concepts Joe. I hope you don't carry this mentality over to your investing; I have to believe you don't.
I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that the poor person who gives 10% IS giving more than the person who's rich and giving 9%. Do you seriously regard people by the depth of their pockets or by the depth of their character?
So now you're deciding who's "depth of character" is the deepest?
The problem I see here is you are looking at this from one side...the side of who's giving, and how much it hurts. Looking at it from the other side, the impact the numbers have on those receiving it, I would say that 3% of $1M ($30,000) is worth more to those on the receiving side, than $10 of $50,000 ($5,000).
What has a greater impact in this discussion? The act, or the results? How do we measure the value of the "parts" in that impact? By expecting the giver hurt more, or by making the receiver hurt less?
For the sake of the argument assuming all other factors are equal, yes, I am deciding who's character is deepest. Drawing on the person's potential other character attributes is an insincere argument in this context.
Obviously the richer man's finances make a bigger impact at 3%, but what if he too gave 10% seeing that the poor man gave 10% as well? THAT is the relevant question. At no point did I say that wealth is wrong. I said that greed is wrong when one accumulates for little other reason than to have more. If anything the richer man has more disposable income in both hard dollars and as a percentage of income. Apples to apples there's really no reason he shouldn't be out-giving the poor man on both fronts handily.
Whether or not the rich man gives more or not is NOT ours to judge or to expect. They earned that money, along with the right to control where it goes next. It's not our place to decide whether or not they are greedy. We have every right to have an opinion, but they have the same right to control what they earned.
We all have the same opportunities available, and don't give me any garbage about where they started, etc..., the list of successful billionaires are littered with the same starting point, and same obstacles. If you want something bad enough, you go get it...and you don't let obstacles stop you.
Now, do I think more highly of those that do give a higher % than those that don't? Of course I do. That doesn't mean I think those that give less (%) are greedy. If for no other reason than we don't know their whole story, and most wealthy people don't advertise how much they have...or give, or they would be presented with requests to fund "icebergs with attached motors racing from the North Pole to Africa to cure a water shortage", everyday.
Flipper/Rehabber · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 732 votes
8y
@David S. , I do agree it's important for one to question their own motives as you mentioned . I know on the BP podcasts and elsewhere this is referred to as the question, "What is your Why?"
I think one's 'why' changes and evolves as well. If someone is single and in their late teens , early 20's it's probably going to be a lot different from someone in their mid 30s for example when they are more likely to be married and have kids.
"Why do you keep going back to percentages? I've never spent a "%" in my life."
@Joe Villeneuve Because metrics help mankind grasp concepts Joe. I hope you don't carry this mentality over to your investing; I have to believe you don't.
I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that the poor person who gives 10% IS giving more than the person who's rich and giving 9%. Do you seriously regard people by the depth of their pockets or by the depth of their character?
So now you're deciding who's "depth of character" is the deepest?
The problem I see here is you are looking at this from one side...the side of who's giving, and how much it hurts. Looking at it from the other side, the impact the numbers have on those receiving it, I would say that 3% of $1M ($30,000) is worth more to those on the receiving side, than $10 of $50,000 ($5,000).
What has a greater impact in this discussion? The act, or the results? How do we measure the value of the "parts" in that impact? By expecting the giver hurt more, or by making the receiver hurt less?
For the sake of the argument assuming all other factors are equal, yes, I am deciding who's character is deepest. Drawing on the person's potential other character attributes is an insincere argument in this context.
Obviously the richer man's finances make a bigger impact at 3%, but what if he too gave 10% seeing that the poor man gave 10% as well? THAT is the relevant question. At no point did I say that wealth is wrong. I said that greed is wrong when one accumulates for little other reason than to have more. If anything the richer man has more disposable income in both hard dollars and as a percentage of income. Apples to apples there's really no reason he shouldn't be out-giving the poor man on both fronts handily.
Whether or not the rich man gives more or not is NOT ours to judge or to expect. They earned that money, along with the right to control where it goes next. It's not our place to decide whether or not they are greedy. We have every right to have an opinion, but they have the same right to control what they earned.
We all have the same opportunities available, and don't give me any garbage about where they started, etc..., the list of successful billionaires are littered with the same starting point, and same obstacles. If you want something bad enough, you go get it...and you don't let obstacles stop you.
Now, do I think more highly of those that do give a higher % than those that don't? Of course I do. That doesn't mean I think those that give less (%) are greedy. If for no other reason than we don't know their whole story, and most wealthy people don't advertise how much they have...or give, or they would be presented with requests to fund "icebergs with attached motors racing from the North Pole to Africa to cure a water shortage", everyday.
My response to Joseph above will likely to suffice in clarifying my heart in the matter Joe. You're right, it's not mine to judge, it's for each of us to judge for ourselves. But to compare one's giving on a dollar for dollar basis is a poor benchmark regardless. I can do that with most any person in Venezuela today and subsequently pat myself on the back handily. If the dollar figure is the method of choice for a wealthy man in gauging his philanthropy it's likely because he seeks to keep a little more in his own pocket while looking good on paper. Even the bible made this concept clear 2000 years ago; that one's tried and true.
"Why do you keep going back to percentages? I've never spent a "%" in my life."
@Joe Villeneuve Because metrics help mankind grasp concepts Joe. I hope you don't carry this mentality over to your investing; I have to believe you don't.
I understand what you're saying, and I would argue that the poor person who gives 10% IS giving more than the person who's rich and giving 9%. Do you seriously regard people by the depth of their pockets or by the depth of their character?
So now you're deciding who's "depth of character" is the deepest?
The problem I see here is you are looking at this from one side...the side of who's giving, and how much it hurts. Looking at it from the other side, the impact the numbers have on those receiving it, I would say that 3% of $1M ($30,000) is worth more to those on the receiving side, than $10 of $50,000 ($5,000).
What has a greater impact in this discussion? The act, or the results? How do we measure the value of the "parts" in that impact? By expecting the giver hurt more, or by making the receiver hurt less?
For the sake of the argument assuming all other factors are equal, yes, I am deciding who's character is deepest. Drawing on the person's potential other character attributes is an insincere argument in this context.
Obviously the richer man's finances make a bigger impact at 3%, but what if he too gave 10% seeing that the poor man gave 10% as well? THAT is the relevant question. At no point did I say that wealth is wrong. I said that greed is wrong when one accumulates for little other reason than to have more. If anything the richer man has more disposable income in both hard dollars and as a percentage of income. Apples to apples there's really no reason he shouldn't be out-giving the poor man on both fronts handily.
Whether or not the rich man gives more or not is NOT ours to judge or to expect. They earned that money, along with the right to control where it goes next. It's not our place to decide whether or not they are greedy. We have every right to have an opinion, but they have the same right to control what they earned.
We all have the same opportunities available, and don't give me any garbage about where they started, etc..., the list of successful billionaires are littered with the same starting point, and same obstacles. If you want something bad enough, you go get it...and you don't let obstacles stop you.
Now, do I think more highly of those that do give a higher % than those that don't? Of course I do. That doesn't mean I think those that give less (%) are greedy. If for no other reason than we don't know their whole story, and most wealthy people don't advertise how much they have...or give, or they would be presented with requests to fund "icebergs with attached motors racing from the North Pole to Africa to cure a water shortage", everyday.
My response to Joseph above will likely to suffice in clarifying my heart in the matter Joe. You're right, it's not mine to judge, it's for each of us to judge for ourselves. But to compare one's giving on a dollar for dollar basis is a poor benchmark regardless. I can do that with most any person in Venezuela today and subsequently pat myself on the back handily. If the dollar figure is the method of choice for a wealthy man in gauging his philanthropy it's likely because he seeks to keep a little more in his own pocket while looking good on paper. Even the bible made this concept clear 2000 years ago; that one's tried and true.
Be well Joe!
...and the % is the method of choice for a poor man gauging the rich man's philanthropy if they place the value on the act, and not the result. I bet all those A students would love to "share" a % of that grade with those that got a lesser grade...like an F...and, I still bet $30k has more value in Venezuela than $5k does.
Simple solution: Don't participate in the system if you find it distasteful.
Who cares if someone else wants to go buy a million houses? We're responsible for our own actions.
Live and let live!
I also find the political landscape to be rather distasteful but that doesn't mean I'd be better off not participating. Live and let live! ;)
I participate but try not to pontificate on why my choice is better. To each his own.
Very grateful to live in a capitalist society as opposed to the alternative (unlike most posters, I have actually lived in a country which is a testament to the rule of the jungle and much prefer the alternative).
Augusta, GA · Member since 2017 · 13 posts · 2 votes
8y
@David Smit I think you said it right with greed. We all posses greed even the most active socialist are greedy in since of the are greedy for equality, once we get that natural high of succes in something we constantly want more and more and even the best intentions can’t change true nature. Everyone wants a flashy car or be able to take there family anywhere in world or cure cancer. W.e the desire the more we gain the more we always want and in reality changing it is impossible as changing the stars.
Catskill, NY · Member since 2018 · 636 posts · 668 votes
8y
The wealthy business owners are also the ones who create jobs. The company you mention with 82,000 units...how many people do you think they employ? Between PM, handymen, contractors, accountants, lawyers, RE agents, etc. Technically, they are "giving back." Even if it isn't cash donations, they're helping the economy and every person running for political office always says how we need more jobs. Can't have more jobs without people building businesses and hiring employees.
Lender · Philadelphia, PA · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
8y
Everyone has different goals. Some people want 10 properties free and clear and then they retire. Some want 82,000. I don't fault either person pursuing it. One of the most generous and non greedy people I know owns roughly 26,000 doors.
Flipper/Rehabber · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 732 votes
8y
@Chris Szepessy
Yeah that is true . According to this link they have 907 employees , that number has probably fluctuated but they still have a lot of employees .
Also Invitation Homes is a public company now they went public early last year (2017) so one can actually be invested in the company without being wealthy .
The price doesn’t seem to have moved much but it does pay a dividend of 1.92%
Rental Property Investor · Torrance, CA · Member since 2016 · 724 posts · 1k+ votes
8y
Chris Szepessy I agree. All of is that have a W2 job have one because of someone that’s “greedy” and concerned with self attainment. A poor man has never given me a job.
Property Manager · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2017 · 37 posts · 12 votes
8y
As other people have stated I believe a majority of real estate investors do this because it's their passion. You can make this argument about literally anything. Unlike a majority of of BP members my political affiliation isn't super far right ( Proud Libertarian) but regardless if someone own 82k homes good for them. Think about all the repair and construction businesses that will have work because someone owns those homes. Think about all the TAXES that landlord will be paying for the property. I understand where you are coming from but ultimately a majority of people don't aspire to be wealthy so this isnt taking away from 20K potential property owners.
Rental Property Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
8y
The number of rentals that make you financially independent with huge buffer is enough. You can do more if you elect to do so. If you don't like the money donate it to me.
Real Estate Broker · LA & ORANGE COUNTY CA -Multi Family · Member since 2016 · 374 posts · 132 votes
8y
@David Smit
Contended poverty is an honorable estate, but if indeed it is contended it’s not poverty at all. It’s not the man that has to little, but the man who craves more that is poor. 🙏🏼
Investor · Rocktown, IL · Member since 2012 · 238 posts · 69 votes
8y
@ David Smit:
“Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
Frederic Bastiat
In other words, you will be far better off first making certain the implementation of your own value system within your own life endeavors actually matches your supposedly higher standards -- before broadly generalizing about the alleged lesser character traits of others. I will make a high wager that you are right now living far above the means of hundreds of thousands of other "less fortunate" individuals in this country. So, David, why are you so "greedy"?
Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 21 votes
8y
I totally agree David, but then again, I work at a nonprofit on affordable housing. I have my target number for financial freedom, but I in no way am going to retire at that point. I see it more as having the freedom to do things the way I really want, no constraints. Because of that, I've set my unit/cash flow number a bit higher than what I need so I can invest that money in my own business that will help low/mod income residents buy buildings, provide the management training and assistance in the loan process. There are gov't loans that provide a lot of assistance in purchasing a 1-4 unit building, but at least where I live the nonprofits only tell people to how to use these loan products with true 1 unit single family. I find this very frustrating and a gap that perhaps I can help fill. I also have some fun ideas about super efficient, spaces that I think would be awesome to wrap up in affordable housing. But to your point, I don't need more, more, more, and I don't know if that's how we should be thinking about our lives. I want to be set my family up for a stable future and then I want to continue to use that stability to do good in the world. Realestate can be a race to the bottom just as anything else can be. You have to know yourself well enough to know when it's enough. :)
When is enough? You won't get the same answer from anyone on this forum. We all have different goals and opinions.
I find it interesting that investors are the ones that are greedy because other people have a set idea on how much "enough" is for someone else.
When Michael Jordan won 4 championships, did everyone say "That's enough, give others a chance". Did everyone expect him to retire? Was he greedy for not retiring and trying to win more? When he won another, was he even more greedy for not retiring?
Basketball is what MJ did and he wanted to win every game he could, Real estate is what I do, and therefore I want to win every deal I can.
If you have a high paying corporate job. Let's say $80k/year. To many Americans that is a LOT of money. To those people looking at a well paid corporate job, would they say it's greedy if you accept a new position that pays $90k?
The folks that accept promotions, change jobs for higher pay, better benefits, are they all greedy for wanting more? Were their previous jobs not enough?
How is it not greedy for employees to advance their careers, athletes to keep winning titles, yet when it comes to investors advancing your portfolio is greed?
That makes no sense to me.
An example: Grant Cardone has more money than anyone will ever need. He has what everyone would consider "enough" Why does he keep working? He has enough! Should he just rollover and die? He has goals that he wants to meet and he is going to keep working towards them in order to fulfill what he believes his TRUE and full potential.
In terms of monopolies, anti trust laws, and it being illegal to own too much property.....well I laughed out loud when I read that.
What constitutes a monopoly in real estate? You will be hard pressed to find a single investor, company, etc owning the majoring of homes across the US. Your example of 82k doors owned by one company isn't even a drop in the bucket in the overall real estate market.
Should the government file a case against @Brandon Turner for running a monopoly in Podunk, Washington?
I was born in a socialist country that has all of the desired "laws" in order to make for a perfect society: Healthcare, retirement, no one owning too much property. Yet here I am in America, subjecting myself to this awful, capitalist hell where I have to work for a living!
I thank my lucky stars everyday that I have to pay for my health insurance, save for my own retirement and have the very RARE opportunity to compete in the open market against all of you on these forums for property.
Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
8y
Despite some of the vitriol, I think this has been a very good thread, and a worthwhile thread. My thoughts, in no particular order:
1. I think the original question ("When is enough enough - how many homes does one need?") is a valid question, and something any of us who invest in RE should ask ourselves. If you read enough of these forums, the vast majority of people that look to accumulate X number of doors here do so with the idea of being wealthy, financially independent, etc. But how many of us ask, and answer, the question "What is financially independent?" or "What is wealthy?" I'd hazard lots - maybe most - do not, and pretty soon the accumulation of doors becomes nothing more than another job. I know that I myself am guilty of thinking "Hey, why stop at 15? Why not 150?" - but to what purpose? Bragging rights? More money? Providing good housing? Some other purpose? I can honestly say that I'm not sure I ever really considered the concept of "enough" until I read Vicky Robin's Your Money or Your Life. I can't imagine how life would not be better for most people if they pondered this question.
2. The powers of corporatism can be used for good or evil, even considering that the terms good and evil are relative and (somewhat) subjective. Democracy and devolution of resources to the masses are usually an inefficient way of achieving any end result. That one corporation ends up with many doors is probably less noteworthy than how they operate that model. Bringing the model back to a smaller scale, many of my tenants are lucky that I have the homes I have, because they'd be living in something far less nice than what I provide.
3. Socialism and capitalism are equally important. They are the yin and yang of economics. No western economy allows unfettered capitalism, because it leads to anarchy in short order. No western economy allows unfettered socialism because it leads to apathy and stagnancy in short order. Because economies are run by humans, with all of their social and psychological baggage and instinctual tendencies, mechanisms must exist to both encourage and restrain action and activity. A lack of concern for the common good, and therefore laws and limitations on action & activity, inevitably leads to the insourcing of all profits and the outsourcing of all expenses. Keeping the air clean is an expense. Preventing total destruction or monopolization of a necessary resource is a common good. Socialistic avenues must exist to prevent the very nature of capitalism (the accumulation of capital) from destroying the system. That said, the forces of capitalism have been the driver of human education and innovation, producing a level of human safety and comfort never before seen in history. Progress is highly unlikely without reward, which is the ingredient lacking in the purest form of socialism. The human animal is such that in short order few people do most of the work. As people figure out how to exist from the labor of others, their output decreases. Look at any company; look at any family - most of the work, effort and achievements come from a relative few number of people. Without incentive, many of these people would eventually cease their efforts.
3. Americans in general (I don't know enough about other Western cultures to say) have become too soft by having it too good for too long. If you gave half of these people a paid for house, in 5 years or less they'd lose it to foreclosure by taking out loan after loan on the property and partying the money away. A good percentage of Americans don't have the necessary discipline to delay instant gratification and make smart financial decisions, so giving these people more money wouldn't accomplish much.
4. As for charity, I'm not entirely sure most charity even makes sense. Cold or not, there are far too many people on this planet for everyone to live like Americans, and quite a few charities exist in the idea of remaking all societies to resemble our own. I personally give to 4 or 5 specific causes on a regular basis - St. Jude, my local animal shelter, DAV, Second harvest (a food bank), and my local firefighters association (maybe a few I'm forgetting). Most of these have low or no administrative costs and serve causes that I feel a personal affinity for.
5. I'm probably as socialistic as they come on the BP boards, but I tell everyone I'm a bad socialist because although I believe in many of the ideals of socialism, I fully recognize that a very high percentage of people are simply worthless and would do as little as possible to exist, and that without good capitalists this would be a very scary place to live in short order. The problem with socialists is that they are too bleeding heart. I believe that a society this wealthy ought to be able to provide a decent floor for a standard of living, but that no one should exist without contributing to the betterment of society *especially* if they are benefiting from the efforts of others. Thus, no one should sit at home and collect money or benefits for free - there are a billion things out there that need doing, from sitting with old folks in retirement homes to providing day care for people to work to cleaning up the side of the road. There's something for everyone to do, and everyone should do something, and if there's no private sector avenue to direct those efforts, then they should be invested into the public good. I believe that every young person in the USA should be drafted into public service for at least 2 years, and that doesn't necessarily mean the military. There is a cost to maintaining this society, and it should be borne by everyone. You cannot have socialism without expectation, and that is the problem with most people who follow this idea because absent expectation you will have nothing.
6. The idea of "takers" in our society cuts both ways. People who sit at home and collect benefits for doing nothing are takers. People who exploit the system for their own personal gain without contributing back to society are takers. Thankfully, most people fall somewhere in between. When the two ends of this thing become too heavy society will break. We need people going out there and innovating and striving to improve their lives and the lives of others, and we need to recognize that we don't achieve anything in a vacuum.
