Wealth.
Pages
| Author | Topic: Wealth. |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 05:04
Profile
Leadership, consistency, and ability to take calculated risk have more to do with building wealth than intelligence or merit. Meritorious intelligent people for the most part end up in the middle/upper middle class essential job categories-- fireman, teacher, musician, mathematician, small essential business holder-- gas station owner, etc. Not as incredibly wealthy people. Social darwinism for money is not the best way to do it. So there. 0 -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 06:24
Profile
Homepage
Just a wild guess here, but did you mean this to be a reply to the libertarianism topic? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 07:46
Profile
If it is agreement, then I do agree that using the yardstick of money to describe a person's wealth is like using a tape measure to describe their personality. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2339
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 09:07
Profile
Blaeurgh. Wealthy people. Around 6% of the Earth's poplulation is so rich they control approximately 50% of the world's wealth. Common sense says we should take their stuff and divide it amongst ourselves, but their bribes and wealth-inspired influence make people say otherwise. I hate wealthy people. EDIT: By that, I meant people who acquired so much money, and use it to get more money, or use their money frivolously. There's got to be some people who use their wealth for things other than impressing people and buying unnecessary things. It just seems a waste that so much of the world's money is kept by so little of the population. (fixed typo) [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 14:55: Message edited by: Zephyr Tempest ] -------------------- -Zephyr Tempest, your personal entertainer Posts: 1779 | Registered: Monday, December 9 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 09:32
Profile
quote:Didn't Dikiyoba tell you that you had died? Dead men tell no tales. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 09:41
Profile
Homepage
Hating wealthy people makes only slightly more sense than hating poor people. It's not exactly a mark of shame, or at least it shouldn't be. Ostentatious, wasted wealth is different, but you don't become a bad person once you have your first million in the bank (or whatever cutoff you prefer for rich). —Alorael, who agrees that money is not a good measurement of merit, although it correctly very roughly with some ambiguously undefined talent. Money is a perfect indicator of wealth by definition, but wealth isn't happiness or even sufficiency. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 09:45
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Jumpin' Salmon: quote:And here Dikiyoba thought you had something useful to say, Salmon. Dikiyoba guesses that explains why you only got a 3.8 meters on your personality test. Edit: Added quote. [ Saturday, October 28, 2006 09:52: Message edited by: Dikiyoba ] Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 09:52
Profile
I completely agree that wealth doesn't necessitate a great deal of academic intelligence; however, being able to navigate through corporate and social ladders and making good decisions is evidence of another, equally comparable type of intellect that should not be ignored. Those who inherit ludicrous fortunes without working at all for them don't display anything meritorious in my eyes, but anyone who diligently works their way up must have some talent. I think, though, that an intellectual with some ambition will often go far. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 10:43
Profile
quote:Wow!!! That beats my personal best of 2.1 perturbed polar bears. Go me!!! -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 10:56
Profile
Homepage
Yes, the vast majority of the world's wealth is in the hands a very few. What does that tell you? Why do these people have so much money? Why do the less well-off allow this to happen? There have beens all kinds of revolutions to bring down those on top but you know what always ends up happening? The money goes right back to the hands of a few, and not nessesarily the same ones. You could take all the wealth in the world and distribute it evenly to every single person and you know what, it will all be right back in the hands of a few, probably within a mere couple of years. Why? Because some people have it, some don't. Some have intelligence, leadership, ambition, I really can't quantify these things or give one definition, but can we at least agree that there are strong out there and there are weak? And that the former is more likely to succeed in capitalism than the latter? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 12:05
Profile
quote:Nice opinion, but it isn't a cold, hard truth. Some people can have it, but don't want it. Some people are satisfied with what they have and don't see the need to increase their consumption of our swindling natural resources. quote:[/b] You lose. If you can't provide a definition, then there is nothing to which we can agree. quote:No definition, no agreement. Your undefined strong and your undefined succeed may make a merry couple, but I can not recognize them as such. Try again. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 12:07
Profile
Homepage
Except for your ludicrous reliance on the utterly undefined and subtext-laden terms "strong" and "weak" I agree. There are some people who are good at accruing wealth and some who aren't. That's inevitable. You view it as something to be encouraged, though, while I believe that systems should be in place to limit the disparity to a reasonable level, or more accurately to keep the bottom from being too low no matter where the top is. —Alorael, who certainly doesn't think that everything that the good earners get should go to the less skillful earners. That results in economic disaster. As he said before, though, taking a few percent more won't make much difference to the top and it makes a world of difference to the bottom. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 12:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:But dead men tell no tales, they say! Except old tales that burn away The stifling tapestries of day... -- Haniel Long -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 13:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm not sure I want to hear his definition of these terms... it might make me irate. I basically agree with Alo on this one. (also, his moniker needed to be quoted for posterity) EDIT: I imagine that 'guoting' something for posterity is illegal. [ Saturday, October 28, 2006 13:38: Message edited by: Ephesos ] -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 14:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:That's just it, these people don't have it. They may have the skill, but it is worthless without the ambition. If you really can't see the abstract and need a definition to understand, I'll try my best. A strong person has to have intelligence and charisma. They must also have ambition, because without it their strengths amount to nothing. My definition is as simple as that. Luck plays into it as well, which is why sociology is a soft science. Success is define as the ability to exert ones will over others. This tends to lead to wealth, but more importantly power, which also tends to lead to wealth. Capitalism favors those that are intelligent, charismatic, and ambitious. At the risk of getting into a eugenics argument, I must ask, are these people not the best humanity has to offer and thus deserving of success in the capitalist system? Alorael: What percent are we talking here? In nations where the poor and elderly start to outnumber the workers (which is more and more the case in the United States) that percentage gets higher and higher. Where do you draw the line? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 16:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:Which is an argument that justifies rape, murder, theft and anything else you want to do to "exert your will over others", as long as you can get away with it. All in the name of "success". -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 16:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:I hate repeating myself. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 16:43
Profile
quote:I assume that is from the Libertarian Handbook. I would then ask a question of you. How should an unregulated Exxon dealt with the Valdez affair? How should Union Carbide have dealt with the Bhopal affair? How should Sweatshops Inc. dealt with fire-related deaths in their New York City division. I appreciate the hypothetical as much as the next guy, but I fail to see any connection in reality with any (any) of the main points being advanced by the Libertarians. Sure, they may look possible on paper, and sincere arguments can be made, but in real life they fall flat on their figurative faces and die. I await your reply with anticipation. :D -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 16:56
Profile
Homepage
For your examples, the answer is obvious. Those companies hurt people, it could be argued they were guilty of murder. Such crimes should be taken to court and punished, that is the government's duty. quote:In real life, it's as simply as being conservative when it comes to the economy, such as lowering taxes and cutting government spending, and liberal when it comes to social issues, such as supporting civil liberties. There is no reason why these policies wouldn't work in practice. They actually have. Edit: Oh, now I see why I'm repeating myself so much. This topic is now being discussed in two different threads. Is this normal? [ Saturday, October 28, 2006 17:00: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 17:22
Profile
Homepage
quote:Your position is inconsistent. What moral justification do you have for protecting those who can't protect themselves? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 17:32
Profile
Homepage
How is my view inconsistent? I'm not an anarchist. Government is nessesary to maintain order. No system of economy will work unless the variables of murder and theft are taken out of the picture. These are things no one can protect themselves from. Even the strongest person who ever lived was not immune to being killed or stolen from. Edit: I think I said this before as well. It was in some kind of Geneforge thread. Someone asked what happens when the supreme leader of my government is assasinated, and I responded that such is a possibility in any form of government. When it comes to death, suddenly everyone becomes equal, even the strong and the weak. [ Saturday, October 28, 2006 17:35: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 17:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:Oh, I see. So it's okay for people to impose their will on each other, except by methods which are actually effective? -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 17:53
Profile
Homepage
I'm sorry, is there a point your trying to make? Once again, yes. He who says organization, says hierarchy. Nietzsche I believe? I think we can all agree that senseless killing is bad. The best way to get rid of killing is to have some kind of organization to stop it: government. Hierarchy becomes inevitable, and I am suggesting that since it is inevitable, then said hierarchy should be an economic one. So yes, your observation is correct. People should be able to impose their will on one another, but should not be able to kill each other. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 17:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:The point I am making is that your ethical system has no basis on which to condemn murder except by baldly asserting that it's bad. quote:To the people who engage in it, it's neither senseless nor bad. Murderers are displaying their willingness to do anything to accomplish their goals, no matter who else it hurts. Aren't these exactly the sort of people you admire? In fact, anyone who refrains from murder simply because it's illegal is letting the government impose its will on them, which, in your view, must place them among the weak. [ Saturday, October 28, 2006 18:01: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Saturday, October 28 2006 18:12
Profile
Homepage
An interesting argument, one I have thought on myself many times. The conclusion I came to is this. If the people really want to murder to get ahead, they are within their rights to overthrow the government and put in place a new one where murder is legal. The reason this doesn't happen is because most people, strong and weak, agree that killing is bad. Such feeling are weak, but they are also bred into humans at birth, since this moral viewpoint is probably based in a fear of death, something few people don’t have. These few people that would prefer a world where they can kill and be killed are more than welcome to destroy government if they want. But in the end, they can't, because its supporters are greater in number and consist of the strong and weak alike. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |