Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The rich and their "influence"

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 7:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Story of the world. People will b1tch and moan about lobbying and campaign donations when it's in opposition to their views (an infamous example is the Koch brothers and Scott Walker), but they don't care when rich people who agree with them lobby.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 8:55:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

So you believe that the rich should be allowed to kill others If they can "afford" to pay off the jury?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:42:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 8:55:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

So you believe that the rich should be allowed to kill others If they can "afford" to pay off the jury?

I assume you meant allowed to "get away" with killing others, and not actually allowed to kill others. So, yes.

You see, the fault is not with the rich here, but with the jury.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:55:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Because the 'stuff' they get done by the politicians to do often adversely affects them.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 11:31:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 8:55:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

So you believe that the rich should be allowed to kill others If they can "afford" to pay off the jury?

These goods/services are harming third parties. We don't care whether a rich person buys goods or services because he/she isn't harming third parties.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 1:03:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 11:31:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:55:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

So you believe that the rich should be allowed to kill others If they can "afford" to pay off the jury?

These goods/services are harming third parties. We don't care whether a rich person buys goods or services because he/she isn't harming third parties.

Which goods/services?

Also, whom should you blame? The party that sells these goods/services or the party that buys them?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's a dog eat dog world. Some things are your fault, some aren't. If you were born in the same circumstance as someone and they became rich while you remained poor, it was the person's fault for not being able to become rich, but it's only their fault if they want to be in the other person's state of wealth.

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Anyone can be powerful, so it is entirely fair in my opinion.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 4:19:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 1:03:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/9/2011 11:31:49 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:55:16 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

So you believe that the rich should be allowed to kill others If they can "afford" to pay off the jury?

These goods/services are harming third parties. We don't care whether a rich person buys goods or services because he/she isn't harming third parties.

Which goods/services?

Also, whom should you blame? The party that sells these goods/services or the party that buys them?

Didn't realize that blame can boil down to a single person If there are multiple people involved. BOTH the seller AND buyer are at fault.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 5:09:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Political clout is not supposed to be for sale, as both politicians and their initiatives can affect legislation, which translates into law; public policy, which translates into rights; and, most importantly, the interests of the government, which include taxation.

You want to give that much control to people purely because they profited from selling shtt? I sure don't.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 5:45:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:09:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Political clout is not supposed to be for sale, as both politicians and their initiatives can affect legislation, which translates into law; public policy, which translates into rights; and, most importantly, the interests of the government, which include taxation.

If political clout is not supposed to be for sale, why is it being sold then? If I can buy something that I want, I'm surely going to buy it. If that thing is not for sale, then surely I should not be able to buy it. Where am I doing anything wrong?

You want to give that much control to people purely because they profited from selling shtt? I sure don't.

I don't. All I'm saying is, if a thing is not for sale, no amount of money should be able to buy it. If money is able to buy it, is it the fault of money, or the person selling it?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 6:40:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:09:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Political clout is not supposed to be for sale, as both politicians and their initiatives can affect legislation, which translates into law; public policy, which translates into rights; and, most importantly, the interests of the government, which include taxation.

Should is a lot different from "is". What matters is the incentive structure. There is no interest of the government. Government does not act. Only individuals act and act on incentives and interest.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:28:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:45:42 PM, Indophile wrote:
If political clout is not supposed to be for sale, why is it being sold then?

Because people allow their greed to circumvent their good sense. In other words, they're immoral.

If I can buy something that I want, I'm surely going to buy it. If that thing is not for sale, then surely I should not be able to buy it. Where am I doing anything wrong?

You can purchase murder, too. Something is not acceptable simply because you paid for it.

I don't. All I'm saying is, if a thing is not for sale, no amount of money should be able to buy it. If money is able to buy it, is it the fault of money, or the person selling it?

Both, but more so the person selling it.

Money is an incentive. Without its capacity to act as an incentive, money is meaningless.

Bear in mind that the same people being bought off, i.e., politicians, are rich, too. They have a vested interest in maintaining the perception of money.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:33:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 6:40:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Should is a lot different from "is". What matters is the incentive structure.

That is what matters in terms of isolating what's wrong.

There is no interest of the government. Government does not act.

I completely disagree with those two statements. Care to give any support? I understand that you cannot provide concrete evidence of an absence, but maybe you can render a logical statement of syllogism that clarifies these conclusions.

Only individuals act and act on incentives and interest.

I disagree that only individuals act, but incentive is a great deal of what contributes to decisions. Perhaps petty incentives that cause commoditization and exploitation are the problem.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 9:55:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 9:33:32 PM, Ren wrote:

There is no interest of the government. Government does not act.

I completely disagree with those two statements. Care to give any support? I understand that you cannot provide concrete evidence of an absence, but maybe you can render a logical statement of syllogism that clarifies these conclusions.

It is not my burden to prove that something doesn't exist. It is your burden to prove that it exists. The government does not have a brain. It isn't conscious It isn't a living organism, unlike a human.

Only individuals act and act on incentives and interest.

I disagree that only individuals act, but incentive is a great deal of what contributes to decisions. Perhaps petty incentives that cause commoditization and exploitation are the problem.

People act on incentives and psychology. Individuals act on their own interest. Any form of 'group' or 'society' is merely a collection of individuals each acting according to their own psychology and incentives.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:36:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.

Rich being a subjective term, yes. A person living in African can be rich by the standards of society. A mentally retarded person could become rich by commercializing. Mentally retarded girl on Glee makes quite a bit. Everyone has the potential to become 'rich.'
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:38:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:36:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.

Rich being a subjective term, yes. A person living in African can be rich by the standards of society. A mentally retarded person could become rich by commercializing. Mentally retarded girl on Glee makes quite a bit. Everyone has the potential to become 'rich.'

Don't watch Glee, but not every person can be on television.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:40:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:38:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:36:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.

Rich being a subjective term, yes. A person living in African can be rich by the standards of society. A mentally retarded person could become rich by commercializing. Mentally retarded girl on Glee makes quite a bit. Everyone has the potential to become 'rich.'

Don't watch Glee, but not every person can be on television.

Sure they could. If they tried hard enough and made the right choices and took the right risks. If all else fails, plastic and Playboy and you have it made.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 11:02:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:40:57 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:38:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:36:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.

Rich being a subjective term, yes. A person living in African can be rich by the standards of society. A mentally retarded person could become rich by commercializing. Mentally retarded girl on Glee makes quite a bit. Everyone has the potential to become 'rich.'

Don't watch Glee, but not every person can be on television.

Sure they could. If they tried hard enough and made the right choices and took the right risks. If all else fails, plastic and Playboy and you have it made.

Yes, but only a limited number of people can make it to TV, so no.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 11:05:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 11:02:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:40:57 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:38:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:36:49 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:28:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 4:01:12 PM, WriterSelbe wrote:

One can't be blamed for their birth, but they can be blamed for not taking the opportunities to gain money. Anyone can become rich. They just have to make the right choice if the opportunity comes.

Totally unfounded. Can a person an African living in oppression be rich? No Can a retard become rich? No.

Also rich is a relative term. Anyone living in a first world nation is likely much much much richer then someone living just a mere 100 years ago.

Rich being a subjective term, yes. A person living in African can be rich by the standards of society. A mentally retarded person could become rich by commercializing. Mentally retarded girl on Glee makes quite a bit. Everyone has the potential to become 'rich.'

Don't watch Glee, but not every person can be on television.

Sure they could. If they tried hard enough and made the right choices and took the right risks. If all else fails, plastic and Playboy and you have it made.

Yes, but only a limited number of people can make it to TV, so no.

And really, the lottery is anyone's game. So anyone can be rich, but not everyone is..
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:20:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 9:28:41 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/9/2011 5:45:42 PM, Indophile wrote:
If political clout is not supposed to be for sale, why is it being sold then?

Because people allow their greed to circumvent their good sense. In other words, they're immoral.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Blaming the rich for the immorality of others doesn't make much sense.

If I can buy something that I want, I'm surely going to buy it. If that thing is not for sale, then surely I should not be able to buy it. Where am I doing anything wrong?

You can purchase murder, too. Something is not acceptable simply because you paid for it.

Yes it is. I'll quote a Spanish (or Persian or Arabic or something) proverb here which I like very much "Take what you want and pay for it says God". Now I know quoting proverbs does not constitute any proof, but I'm just quoting.

I don't. All I'm saying is, if a thing is not for sale, no amount of money should be able to buy it. If money is able to buy it, is it the fault of money, or the person selling it?

Both, but more so the person selling it.

Exactly.
Money is an incentive. Without its capacity to act as an incentive, money is meaningless.

Having money and not using it as an incentive when that is its prime purpose is.... foolish?

Bear in mind that the same people being bought off, i.e., politicians, are rich, too. They have a vested interest in maintaining the perception of money.

Yeah, so why blame the rich?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 2:50:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 10:20:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
Yeah, so why blame the rich?

Because they're the same people. The rich are essentially selling it to themselves, and of the primary reasons is to keep the majority of the money among them.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 10:12:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 2:50:34 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:20:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
Yeah, so why blame the rich?

Because they're the same people. The rich are essentially selling it to themselves, and of the primary reasons is to keep the majority of the money among them.

So, is there a way to make this stop without making a law forbidding it? It's always better to go to the root of it and remove that incentive so that such things will stop by themselves.

For example, nobody had to ban the horse carriage. Automobiles did it automatically.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 6:05:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/11/2011 10:12:40 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/11/2011 2:50:34 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/10/2011 10:20:39 AM, Indophile wrote:
Yeah, so why blame the rich?

Because they're the same people. The rich are essentially selling it to themselves, and of the primary reasons is to keep the majority of the money among them.

So, is there a way to make this stop without making a law forbidding it? It's always better to go to the root of it and remove that incentive so that such things will stop by themselves.

For example, nobody had to ban the horse carriage. Automobiles did it automatically.

Well, yeah.

The rejection of social classes and the study of both economics and politics.

For example. It is clear that the majority of the members of this forum are bipartisan, although they most often use terms like "leftist, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc." rather than simply call it what it is -- republican and democrat. Nonetheless, what they fail to realize is that the bipartisan system is a means to appeal to the people's interests so no one feels left out, not present the ideas and interest of the government. The governmental body is not bipartisan -- that is to say, it isn't at "war." Most people in Washington agree, and act in tandem for common goals.

Barack Obama answers to the same people George W. Bush did.

With a more sophisticated understanding of politics, we can at least distinguish the techniques and devices used that cause people to concentrate so hard on their personal perspectives and how that applies to the larger scheme (which it doesn't), and the things that make a difference, such as what our country is actually doing domestically, internationally, and economically.

In the book Party Government by E. E. Schattschneider, the author writes, quite revealingly: "In the opinion of [James] Madison, parties were intrinsically bad and the sole issue for discussion was the means by which bad parties might be prevented from becoming dangerous....however...parties might be used as beneficent instruments of popular government. It is at this point that the distinction between the modern and antique attitude was made." In addition, he writes, "Anyone who has thought about it can see that the parties and law are inassimilable."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 2:57:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Because its grievously wrong, on fundamental Kantian, so to speak (see the second formulation of his categorical imperative), ethical, humanistic, and spiritual grounds to reduce and objectify fellow human beings into mere means to one's economic ends, into subalterns to one's sense of elitist entitlement. Also, as for politicians, well, politicians aren't supposed to be in office merely to cater to the 1% that has the money-power to co-opt them!

And, by the way, explicitly defining being "rich" as being in a socioeconomically dominant position that allows one to use others is a good beginning if you're interested in developing an honest and critical understanding of capitalism. However, if you start from the perverse pro-capitalist mind-set that this (possessing the socioeconomic dominance to use others) is a right & proper thing, well then you find yourself asking dumb (no insult intended) questions such as "why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?" That is, your definition of being "rich" is a fundamental reason to ethically oppose capitalism, not a reason to be puzzled by people's aversion to exploitation and the co-optation of their venal elected representatives.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 4:06:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 2:57:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/8/2011 3:58:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
What does it mean to be rich?

Doesn't it mean, you can get more people to do stuff for you?

Imagine having all the money in the world, but nobody is willing to do any work for you, or sell stuff to you or any such thing? Would you be really rich then?

So, if being rich means being able to get more people to do stuff for you, why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?

Because its grievously wrong, on fundamental Kantian, so to speak (see the second formulation of his categorical imperative), ethical, humanistic, and spiritual grounds to reduce and objectify fellow human beings into mere means to one's economic ends, into subalterns to one's sense of elitist entitlement. Also, as for politicians, well, politicians aren't supposed to be in office merely to cater to the 1% that has the money-power to co-opt them!

Is it fundamentally, ethically, humanistically and spiritually right to reduce and objectify fellow human beings into mere means to one's ANY end, let alone economic?

What if I look upon them as a means to my end of being happy? One cannot live alone in society, and one has to have the fellow human beings do something or the other for you. Thus they are a means to some of my ends anyhow. Why should it not be an economic end?

And, by the way, explicitly defining being "rich" as being in a socioeconomically dominant position that allows one to use others is a good beginning if you're interested in developing an honest and critical understanding of capitalism. However, if you start from the perverse pro-capitalist mind-set that this (possessing the socioeconomic dominance to use others) is a right & proper thing, well then you find yourself asking dumb (no insult intended) questions such as "why does everybody complain when rich people actually get other people (especially politicians) to do stuff for them?" That is, your definition of being "rich" is a fundamental reason to ethically oppose capitalism, not a reason to be puzzled by people's aversion to exploitation and the co-optation of their venal elected representatives.

By rich I mean having more money than average. I'm not opposing capitalism or anything like that. I'm merely trying to understand this hypocrisy.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.