Originally Posted by Remford

What about being wealthy necessarily makes someone a bastard and why is it a shame? Do you intend to hang up the "CLOSED" sign once you've earned enough to meet some kind of predetermined limit?

I swear. This nation spends half its time *****ing about the stagnant economy and the other half trying to undermine everything a sustainable economy requires to operate by cutting-off at the knees those who possess the ability and ambition to earn money and a willingness to spend it.

It's no wonder the U.S. is circling the Kohler. When the U.S. has finally reached its credit limit and the last **** fool Chinese realizes there's not a hope in hell of getting back what he's already lent and the wheels finally do come off, it will have been history's biggest ever inside job, and it will have been perpetrated mostly by those who've exacted more from the economy than they've contributed to it.

To these folks, it seems the only virtuous money is what's taken from a first party by a second party who decides how it should be spent upon a third. They spend far more energy begrudging Bill Gates' his wealth than they'll ever expend upon trying to accumulate their own. They seem to feel each dollar in a wealthier person's pocket somehow unjustly was earned at their expense when not once cent of Warren Buffet's wealth will ever make one iota of difference upon their own financial security except by the lack of opportunity he'd ever provide others without it.

They seem to forget that virtually no person ever became wealthy without a great many other people who were eager to make him that way and wanted whatever particular item or service of value he provided more than the money required to obtain it. It's also very important to remember very few people who were foreclosed upon when the bubble burst ever cried when the check cleared the bank - for their first, second, third or fourth mortgages up to 125% of their homes' values which, in many cases, they never could've afforded to begin with. Even many who could continue to afford their homes then decided to make their lenders co-investors by walking away and leaving them holding the bag when the homes stopped climbing in value forever and the ATM ran dry.

These are the people who, to assuage their own regret and resentment, would rather consign everybody to being equally poor than UN-equally wealthy. They tend to be SO focused upon so-called income inequality to notice that "poverty" has never been less arduous or dangerous and now often includes housing, television, a phone and diseases like obesity and diabetes which primarily are diseases of excess rather than hunger and deprivation.

Unless he broke into my house or obtained it by outright fraud, not one single person who is wealthier than I am owes me a goddamned thing or has a greater impact upon my own ability to acquire wealth than I do. Virtually no one who believes differently. In fact, given the punitive tax regime which foists such a huge portion of the burden upon such a disproportionate few, the ONLY appropriate sentiment for those who earn greater wealth is "thank you" for footing so much of the bill that others won't need to pay. It's ironic how so many feel entitled to help themselves to other peoples' tax dollars, while being so reticent to afford them more than the one vote everybody else gets to cast.

Even in terms as specific as the Mustang, why would anybody begrudge the fact that people are apparently willing to pay so much for them? This is precisely what any enthusiast should want. Who has ANY respect for a Chevy Cobalt that precious few wanted even when it was new and before it depreciated to zero upon driving off the dealer lot? I agree that price gouging is an example of dealers abusing the territorial monopolies they enjoy in exchange for being a maker's local representation, but it's makers who have the beef since they don't get to share a nickel of the proceeds while still being responsible for subsidizing any unsold inventory dealers couldn't otherwise sell at a profit.

These used to be common sense principles and, because they were uniquely true in the United States, the reasons why people dropped everything and packed their bags to come here. We've since managed to go so far for so long as a nation by trading upon credit and what our predecessors earned that more people than ever have only their senses of entitlement and expectation without ANY sense of or appreciation for what creating any of those things require. And somewhere along the way, they've become willing to sell themselves out to the first person who told them, "It's not your responsibility. It's "THEIRS", and the first thing I'll do if you're willing to back me is take whatever they have and give some to you."

Originally Posted by Remford

What about being wealthy necessarily makes someone a bastard and why is it a shame? Do you intend to hang up the "CLOSED" sign once you've earned enough to meet some kind of predetermined limit? I swear. This nation spends half its time *****ing about the stagnant economy and the other half trying to undermine everything a sustainable economy requires to operate by cutting-off at the knees those who possess the ability and ambition to earn money and a willingness to spend it. It's no wonder the U.S. is circling the Kohler. When the U.S. has finally reached its credit limit and the last **** fool Chinese realizes there's not a hope in hell of getting back what he's already lent and the wheels finally do come off, it will have been history's biggest ever inside job, and it will have been perpetrated mostly by those who've exacted more from the economy than they've contributed to it. To these folks, it seems the only virtuous money is what's taken from a first party by a second party who decides how it should be spent upon a third. They spend far more energy begrudging Bill Gates' his wealth than they'll ever expend upon trying to accumulate their own. They seem to feel each dollar in a wealthier person's pocket somehow unjustly was earned at their expense when not once cent of Warren Buffet's wealth will ever make one iota of difference upon their own financial security except by the lack of opportunity he'd ever provide others without it. They seem to forget that virtually no person ever became wealthy without a great many other people who were eager to make him that way and wanted whatever particular item or service of value he provided more than the money required to obtain it. It's also very important to remember very few people who were foreclosed upon when the bubble burst ever cried when the check cleared the bank - for their first, second, third or fourth mortgages up to 125% of their homes' values which, in many cases, they never could've afforded to begin with. Even many who could continue to afford their homes then decided to make their lenders co-investors by walking away and leaving them holding the bag when the homes stopped climbing in value forever and the ATM ran dry. These are the people who, to assuage their own regret and resentment, would rather consign everybody to being equally poor than UN-equally wealthy. They tend to be SO focused upon so-called income inequality to notice that "poverty" has never been less arduous or dangerous and now often includes housing, television, a phone and diseases like obesity and diabetes which primarily are diseases of excess rather than hunger and deprivation. Unless he broke into my house or obtained it by outright fraud, not one single person who is wealthier than I am owes me a goddamned thing or has a greater impact upon my own ability to acquire wealth than I do. Virtually no one who believes differently. In fact, given the punitive tax regime which foists such a huge portion of the burden upon such a disproportionate few, the ONLY appropriate sentiment for those who earn greater wealth is "thank you" for footing so much of the bill that others won't need to pay. It's ironic how so many feel entitled to help themselves to other peoples' tax dollars, while being so reticent to afford them more than the one vote everybody else gets to cast. Even in terms as specific as the Mustang, why would anybody begrudge the fact that people are apparently willing to pay so much for them? This is precisely what any enthusiast should want. Who has ANY respect for a Chevy Cobalt that precious few wanted even when it was new and before it depreciated to zero upon driving off the dealer lot? I agree that price gouging is an example of dealers abusing the territorial monopolies they enjoy in exchange for being a maker's local representation, but it's makers who have the beef since they don't get to share a nickel of the proceeds while still being responsible for subsidizing any unsold inventory dealers couldn't otherwise sell at a profit. These used to be common sense principles and, because they were uniquely true in the United States, the reasons why people dropped everything and packed their bags to come here. We've since managed to go so far for so long as a nation by trading upon credit and what our predecessors earned that more people than ever have only their senses of entitlement and expectation without ANY sense of or appreciation for what creating any of those things require. And somewhere along the way, they've become willing to sell themselves out to the first person who told them, "It's not your responsibility. It's "THEIRS", and the first thing I'll do if you're willing to back me is take whatever they have and give some to you."

Originally Posted by typesredline

I don't disagree with a lot of that. But being rich and able to afford it doesn't mean it's right for the dealer to rip them off. I think that's what the post are talking about. No one is mad at someone being rich. It's that the dealer would have the audacity to charge that much.

If someone has the money, good for them. But that sales rep and/or owner would be getting rich from essentially stealing. Which you even said you'd disagree with.

Originally Posted by White2010

The great thing about capitalism is that if some fool is willing to pay your ripoff prices you can make a lot of money. The crappy thing about capitalism is that if some fool is willing to pay your ripoff prices you can make a lot of money. But Remford is right, we have a very liberal / marxist bunch of people in academia in this country who have convinced a whole generation of American kids that rich people are evil, capitalism is corrupt and they all mistakenly believe that socialism and marxism will somehow make their lives better.

Originally Posted by White2010

So here's the thing. You better be rich enough to just pay the $100,000 in cash because your insurance company doesn't care that you're dumb enough to pay more than twice what the car is worth. If that car gets totaled in an accident they aren't going to cut a check for what you owe on it.

In my opinion, a couple badges and a numbering plate aren't worth the extra 60 grand.

Originally Posted by Remford

Apparently we weren't being quite as facetious as we tried to claim... The best thing about those who brand others rich bastards (and douchebags) is how someone inevitably is even poorer than they. Though I wonder why so many who have such keen insight about how others should be obligated to spend their money tend to be among the least adept at earning money of their own - or less adept than the rich bastard douchebags anyway. By what divine mandate should anybody be denied the freedom to spend as much as he likes upon whatever he wants? Should others’ freedoms be subjugated and dealers denied opportunities to spend, save, hire, reinvest or even squander the proceeds as they what? How many peoples' rights should you be allowed to impinge upon to subsidize whatever you want but can't or won't afford? Jeezus pleezus. If people paying outrageous sums to exclude others from buying something they want twists your panties, all of eBay is a proverbial windmill for you to tilt at Mr. Quixote. Even if everybody deserved a trophy for managing to be born and Limited Edition Mustangs were as essential as air and water, the number that actually sell for $100,000 will be so few that Ford buying back cars under lemon laws will have kept more cars out from the truly deserving than all the bastards and douchebags combined – which only shows how dependent upon hyperbole your ridiculous assertions are. If we returned to planet Earth where bastards and douchebags seem to be anybody who’s willing to pay a nickel more than you to own a Limited Edition car, you’d have one hell of a time convincing most of just how “rich” they are. What we’re really talking about is that you want nobody to sell anything you want for more than you want to pay and nobody else to afford anything you can’t, even if it means denying others their freedoms but especially if it means not needing to apply yourself to the extent that others would value you as much as they’re willing to pay rich bastard douchebags for whatever they happen to do. Of course, you'd have become your own rich bastard douchebag by then. But you'd at least have big pharmaceutical companies to focus your resentment upon for the high cost of the medications you'd need to be able to stand yourself. Even if enough rich bastards lined up to spend $100,000 to buy every 1,964 Limited Edition car, it'd only mean that Ford priced the vehicle woefully beneath its actual worth. What you REALLY want is Ford to make a terrific car that you really want to own and to sell it to you for whatever you're willing to pay - and they too would be bastard douchebags if they don't. Right? Don't misunderstand. I think the S550 likely will be the best Mustang yet and the Limited Edition car will make a great symbol of Mustang's 50-year heritage to own. But if I were to allow my undies to get all wadded over something others can afford but I can't, I'd probably choose to aim a little higher - like a Gulfstream and my own private island.

Originally Posted by laserred38

Thanks Burton. My point was this: spending $100k on a $100k car is perfectly fine (most likely you could get the job done for a lesser amount a like getting a Mustang GT instead of a loaded M3(, but spending $100k on a $40-50k car just does not make financial sense. No matter how bad you want it.

Originally Posted by Cristoff

Neither does buying a gold embossed ceramic giraffe, but the super wealthy do it all the time. It's all relative. $100,000.00 to normal folks (like me) seems insane for a car worth half that, but to a multi-millionaire, spending $100,000.00 is like going to Subway and buying a $5.00 footlong.

Originally Posted by laserred38

Thanks Burton. My point was this: spending $100k on a $100k car is perfectly fine (most likely you could get the job done for a lesser amount a like getting a Mustang GT instead of a loaded M3(, but spending $100k on a $40-50k car just does not make financial sense. No matter how bad you want it.