There are so many factors to consider.

It looks like "wealth" means having more money than others, and "legitimate" means "created in our capitalistic system by introducing and selling a product" in your definition.

I define it differently, so the poll simply doesn't work for me.

Perhaps, if I have anything of substance to add, it would be to say that I think your definition is a good fit for our current culture and that IS the problem from my perspective.

Here's an alternate definition of "wealth:"

Economic safety and security, and unlimited access to health care and education. For ALL. A family and community of people who love, value, and support one another. A life of humility, service to that community, and knowing that one has been part of making the world a better place for all.

If our culture defined wealth in that way, we'd be healthier, happier, and wealth would be available to all. Under your definition, it's about competition. The way to wealth is to gather more resources, assets, and power than others, ensuring that there will always be gaps. I prefer cooperation to competition. I don't think competition to get more than others is a "legitimate" way to accrue wealth, and I don't think wealth is money or power.

pretty different than they are now. For society as a whole to change, but on a macro and an individual level. And while you paint a nice picture of what that society would be like; i don't know how get from where we are now to there.

On the other point; if you disagree with my definition, you might have been better served by saying "I disagree with that definition." Because by saying "What is legitimate wealth?" I just assumed you didn't read my post.

Bryant

that macro and individual level change; I think I'd rather spend time talking about that than most of what passes for political discussion. Probably why I opened the door to the definition of wealth, lol.

Hard work, innovative ideas, and supplying a wanted or needed product..

... one of my main complaints about our system is nepotism. I think that outside of your spouse or partner, you shouldn't be able to leave more than a few hundred thousand dollars in wealth to your heirs. Everything else should be taxed at 100%.

But someone who creates a concept or invents something and makes a ton of money? That's legitimate wealth just as you posit. I just think their earnings should be taxed at closer to 50% and any employees who help bring their product/services to market should share more in the proceeds ala a 60-1 ratio.

I think Zuckerberg "deserves" to be rich. But I suspect he's MUCH richer on a proportional basis than even his most skillful working level managers and engineers (not talking about executives here... I'm sure they are doing fine). I would PREFER if more of that welath wealth distributed down the worker chain.

But I don't begrudge him doing very well. He had a great idea that I use every day.

Here's an example... I have a couple colleagues that a few years ago decided to leave their current company and form their own. They took a big risk and went off and did their own thing. They went from a company of 3 guys to one with over 100 now, and revenues of almost $20 million/yr. They invited me to join them shortly after they formed, but at the time I had a new baby, my wife had a new job (that was by no means secure) and I just couldn't risk it. 4 years later, I went to work for them. I am payed well (top 10% of my profession), but I missed out on getting a piece of the company. I am FINE with that. They took a huge risk and it paid off. More than that, they built a damn good company that is very employee-centered.

It sounds as if your friends/colleagues are the kind of people this country needs.

People like Romney think they earned it legitimately the old fashioned way... by inheriting it and thinking that somehow makes them skilled w/ understanding money and the economy.

That bothers me.

His wealth is based more on investors wanting to own part of his company than users wanting to have his product, or even advertisers wanting to use his product (the revenue model). Whether FB is a product that will generate profits commensurate with Zuckerberg's massive wealth is still not known.

So, Zuckerberg is wealthy because those people who move money around moved it to him.

Not real wealth.

if that worth mentioning.

eom

---how is that legitimate?

Did that give him most of his fortune?

Bryant

QE1, QE2, and currently, the ongoing QE3.

Yeah, I know, he "invented" something and did some minor work when he actually spent time working on the original website. But the billionaire status is a fantasy that requires the real-life brow sweat of workers actually producing "Facebook." And because he holds certain titles, paper wealth, he gets to live off that labor for as long as Facebook continues.

Even if that weren't the case, Facebook has made it's claim to wealth from selling people's information. Whether they gave that willingly or just stupidly doesn't matter to me.

Even before they went public he could have easily sold it for $500 million cash. That is real wealth.

... all "wealth" is illegitimate.

True wealth is measured by what a person gives away, not by what treasures he hoards.

If Bill Gates distributed all his Microsoft shares among his employees, past and present, gave his cash to some organization like Médecins Sans Frontières, turned over his secure home for use as a battered spouse's shelter, and posted a "gone fishing" sign on the internet, maybe to dabble in open source software under an assumed name from a nice, but quite ordinary flat in Paris, Seattle, or London, then he would be a very wealthy man.

Until then he is just another control freak predator like all the rest of them, Zuckerberg included.

I'm not wealthy by any means but I was thinking of going to the movies on Saturday - should I not go and spend my money on the hungry, homeless, illiterate and without appropriate medical care.

Bryant

Some ordinary homeless guy might tell you a better story for eight bucks than anything you'd see at the movies.

This bowl of soup cost about 5 bucks (I made a big pot on saturday and am getting 3 meals out of it) - i could be eating Raman for what - a dollar - at most? Should I do that as well?

If I did that everyday I could save about 120 bucks a month that i could give to the poor.

Bryant

FINIS.

It just seemed to me that you were painting with a very broad brush.

but there's a sizable minority who just don't.

The hard part isn't creating the product, it's out-networking the other bastards with similar ideas to give your product a foothold on the marketplace.

Ok Ken Hamm jr.

That's how it works in our current system - i think 2 and a half man was a terrible show - poorly written, lazily acted, awful all the way around. But people watched the hell out of it, so . . . it was a success.

Bryant

This loser just got lucky... Booooo him and stupid little web page. He is nothing more than a glorified Geocities webmaster.

Mark's lack of skill were very apparent when Facebook first launched. There was no music that played in the background, animated images, nor were any signs of the blink or marquee tags. I have been a webmaster for 45 years, and Facebook was and still is a joke.

and extensions required to code something like Facebook. CSS, GMPG, PHP, OGP, et al.


I worked for an old hosting/design company that originally built everything in FP97. Maintaining those old sites was a pain in the ass. And then having to rebuild in Dreamweaver so they could have modern appointments.

However, you are correct. Anyone can build a website. But not everyone can make a popular website. That takes marketing, and a little bit of luck. Mark's coding abilities are far beyond any old shitty Geocities page.

I don't think I've ever heard anything about Zuckerberg in relation to women. (Not arguing, just asking for information.)

As to answer your main question, I would say that he deserves his money in that he came up with a great idea and provides a service that hundreds of millions of people, including me, find useful or fun. Now it could be that in our system, Facebook's vast net worth is not divided "fairly" or "optimally", in that perhaps less of it should be in the hands of one person, but he and his associates took risks, worked hard, and added a lot of value to people's lives. As companies go, too, they could be a lot worse: they don't destroy the environment, their employees are paid well (so well that people in the Bay Area protest they're driving up rents), and they don't run sweatshops in the developing world.

So certainly, I would say his wealth is much more legitimate than many other people who got theirs through inside connections, exploitative industries, or industries that don't really create much of anything (e.g. financial services).

But his first website was one that was called Facesmash - enabled you to pick to women (and men?) from two photos held by the University and click on the one that seems hotter.

Bryant

Zuckerberg donated the most out of everyone on in the country. He donation rank is number 1 out of 330,000,000 people. Sorry but you can't get better than that.

are just ways to excuse and justify inequality and irrational excesses...

I'm not impressed

I would rather we have a just society where one person could not amass such unnecessary amounts of money... and then be the one to determine who needs it most... that is a world created by a handful of select individuals and I don't think that a civil society looks like that

You provide some statements about Mark Zuckerberg, but you don't define "legitimate wealth".

If you mean "wealth like Mark Zuckerberg's" - which appears to be your definition - then the answer is tautologically "yes", but that's not very interesting.

But that's the point to a discussion board isn't it? Is to clarify things by discussing them.

Bryant

I don't correlate wealth with money but with health, friends, happiness.

If someone creates something there is a demand for and becomes wealthy from it, it's hard to argue that money is not legitimate. It is my understanding that he wasn't exactly ethical about Facebook involving his initial partners.

Facebook, but especially him, is a horrible thing. He uses people for money and a bunch of people there I am happy to not interact with ever again. The organisation is an enormous drain on everything good and worthwhile about society; this person makes me physically nauseated and his history is something I would never ever have imagined would be possible. I don't think he should be allowed in public; I don't think he should be trusted by anyone. Nothing about facebook should be trusted. These people are nuts. It's really the most horrific thing I have ever seen. I am really... shocked that this has gone on as long as it has. People need to leave the site. Huffpost needs to de-link. Democratic Underground needs to de-link. I want to see better sites. What a horrible human being this person is. So gross, in so many ways. Zuckerberg is really the worst thing I have ever seen. A lot of people associated with the site are people I do not respect. Zuckerberg has done such horror. I have seen some really nasty people in my life; he is among the worst.