Wealth.

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Wealth.
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, October 30 2006 19:39 Profile #75 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: 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. No, you idiot, that isn't it at all. When I call you an idiot, I'm not insulting you. That is a compliment, you freaking mouth-breather. 'Idiot' is better than you deserve. Murder is illegal, we can get to that later. Murder should be illegal. Collapse that down: A good government has a stake in preventing murder. Why? Because good government has a mandate from those it governs. What is that mandate for? That is a good question; you haven't thought about it, because you are retarded. And we are talking the kind of retarded that should make you a ward of the state. The easiest definition is that the mandate is to benefit those it serves. Democracy is the surest way of implementing this: governors cannot be any more than human, so a Hobbesian tyranny is bound to be capricious and, from a mandate thesis of government, non-optimal. Or, to dumb it down into language you have a crack at understanding, democracy works because it allows everyone who it polices to have a say in what that policing happens to be. The reason murder is illegal is, in fact, the same reason federal regulation exists. Nobody wants, or should want, to be vulnerable to murder. In the same vein, Nobody wants, or should want, to be vulnerable to poisoning from tainted food. The same logic can readily and flawlessly be telescoped out to all kinds of things a mouth-breather like you might disapprove of. And just because there exists a competing freedom to murder makes no difference on the desirability of preserving freedom from murder, you parlous dumb-ass. It isn't a question of rights; it's a question of entitlement. You're entitled to a fair shot at life without class or circumstances meddling in that fair shot. You're not entitled to shoot a man because you feel like it, or to profit from poisoning him with an inferior product. And a society that permits either is diseased. And you are an idiot. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 19:41: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, October 30 2006 19:51 Profile Homepage #76 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: Kelandon: Your giving luck a bigger role than it deserves. Are you saying that people like Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the like all lucked out? You may be doing fine in college, but if you don't start learning the difference between "your" and "you're," I might just have to lay the grammatical smack-down. :P I'm not saying that these people lucked out. I'm saying that they were the right people (inherent merit) in the right place at the right time (luck). I believe that Rockefeller was brilliant. I don't believe that dozens of others who didn't make as much money as he did weren't equally brilliant. The role that I'm assigning to luck is this: personal characteristics alone do nothing. Personal characteristics combined with fortuitous circumstances lead people to success (however defined). quote: No, they saw an opportunity (intelligence), And that's where your analysis goes wrong. Seeing an opportunity requires two things: the ability to see it (intelligence, perhaps) and the opportunity existing. You seem immune to the fact that people are given different opportunities. I suppose my problem with your analysis is this: you're trying to judge people from their outcomes. The fact that one person ends up rich in a laissez-faire capitalist system and another ends up poor in the same system doesn't always mean that the rich guy is better ("stronger") than the poor guy. Surely you can agree with that statement, at least. quote: Originally written by Kitana: What is it with you and rationality? And wanting to know things? Jesus. Psshh, you're one to talk. :P EDIT: sigh Alec. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 19:53: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Monday, October 30 2006 20:03 Profile #77 Alec, please don't resort to name calling. As inane as some of his statements are, there's no need to get overly personal, it only serves to justify his ego. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Monday, October 30 2006 20:30 Profile Homepage #78 They're not inane. They're wrong. Unrelatedly, rationality is not the same as rationale. Just sayin'. —Alorael, who thinks that's a good definition for basic research. It's the stuff that creates the opportunities for applications without having applications in mind. (It can't have applications in mind because pushing the boundaries of knowledge means, by definition, that nobody knows what they're going to discovery, let alone how to use it. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Monday, October 30 2006 20:38 Profile #79 Quoth the first definiton of inane at dictionary.com quote: inane: lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly I would say some of his statements conform to this. Whether or not you agree is another matter. :P -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:18 Profile Homepage #80 quote: Andraste: Some people do research just for the joy of discovering new things. This is fantastic. Good for them. Happiness is the most important thing. If they really don't do it for the money, I would be more than happy to not give it to them. quote: Zevis: The definition of basic research is that it has no practical applications at the time. It took many decades for practical applications of Einstein's work to become apparent. Sure, whatever. What exactly do you expect me to do about this? Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? I don't understand what I am supposed to say to this. You had the same comments, i. My question is, how exactly are we supposed to compensate these scientists for something that we won't even know will be useful until decades later? What does this have to do with the economy anyway? As for government spending on research. Most of the time, including in your satellite situation, the government is researching these things in the name of national security. They would have done the same thing in my system, as national security is the primary duty of the government. MBA vs. PhD: The answer to why an MBA makes more than a PhD is simple, yet I must admit that even I am unsatisfied with this element of society. The answer is this: charisma is valued above intelligence in modern society. This is something I can not change. It is not my fault, it is a simple fact. Sorry scientists, perhaps there is some weight to the 'nerd' stereotype after all. I would like very much for scientists to have their rightful place in society, but it is not going to happen unless society itself reorganizes its priorities. Dintiradan is drawing villain inspiration from me? Do you guys hate me that much? I'm not evil! I'm just trying to bring order and prosperity to the world! -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156* \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:32 Profile Homepage #81 Did you just ask what pay rate has to do with the economy? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:44 Profile Homepage #82 No. But thanks for asking instead of assuming what I meant like people usually do. I asked how we were supposed to reward scientists for ideas that may or may not be useful for years after their deaths. This is not something that the economy can compensate for on it's own, with or without government regulation. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:46 Profile #83 quote: Originally written by The Worst Man Ever: No, you idiot, that isn't it at all. Blah blah blah. And you are an idiot. I had missed you Alec. I hope your visits become more frequent. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:48 Profile #84 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: No. But thanks for asking instead of assuming what I meant like people usually do. I asked how we were supposed to reward scientists for ideas that may or may not be useful for years after their deaths. This is not something that the economy can compensate for on it's own, with or without government regulation. If your new government had the extra room, a Patent Office would be helpful in organizing something like this. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:56 Profile #85 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: quote: Andraste: Some people do research just for the joy of discovering new things. This is fantastic. Good for them. Happiness is the most important thing. If they really don't do it for the money, I would be more than happy to not give it to them. quote: Zevis: The definition of basic research is that it has no practical applications at the time. It took many decades for practical applications of Einstein's work to become apparent. Sure, whatever. What exactly do you expect me to do about this? Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? I don't understand what I am supposed to say to this. You had the same comments, i. My question is, how exactly are we supposed to compensate these scientists for something that we won't even know will be useful until decades later? What does this have to do with the economy anyway? Because your model of the economy is horrible for research. Without public-funded consortia (e.g. universities), there's literally no incentive to do the science thing. As for government spending on research. Most of the time, including in your satellite situation, the government is researching these things in the name of national security. They would have done the same thing in my system, as national security is the primary duty of the government. Bull*. The primary duy of the government is to fulfill its mandate to its components. And no, most government research isn't primarily in national security. That is the one field in which government research should definitely predominate (see: private nukes, lack of). Almost all research, great and small, is conducted with government grants, and rewarded with government-enforced patents and protections. Government is an inextricable part of every field of inquiry. And yet Stareye insists I should molly-coddle you. I have but called a spade a spade, and pointed out that you appear to have ** in the stead of brains. Because, you know, you do. MBA vs. PhD: The answer to why an MBA makes more than a PhD is simple, yet I must admit that even I am unsatisfied with this element of society. The answer is this: charisma is valued above intelligence in modern society. This is something I can not change. It is not my fault, it is a simple fact. Sorry scientists, perhaps there is some weight to the 'nerd' stereotype after all. I would like very much for scientists to have their rightful place in society, but it is not going to happen unless society itself reorganizes its priorities. That's literally the dumbest response anyone has ever given to any question ever asked, and I'm deeply ashamed to have read it. MBAs don't make more money because they're 'charismatic'. They make more money because they're educated in a field in which they handle untoward amounts of money. An MBA is the highest degree in business; holding one makes someone desirable to companies large and small - because it represents knowledge of the theoretical underpinnings of business, marketing, and economics. 'Charisma' has nothing to do with it, you nitwit. Dintiradan is drawing villain inspiration from me? Do you guys hate me that much? I'm not evil! I'm just trying to bring order and prosperity to the world! And now, the vapid airhead hat-trick: getting impressed about Spiderweb celebrity. You truly are an imbecile for all seasons. I submit, sir, that if you're really that bent on having a world in which the intellectually and personally strong (and, apparently, 'charismatic') rule over society, you start ingratiating yourself to me. I could knowledge or theory you under the table on my worst day; my gimmick involves being an abrasive jackass yet I have scores more friends here (and, I'm betting, in person) than you in spite of having exposed all of them to it for years; and if all else fails, I have an IQ near 200, am six foot five, and weigh two hundred and twenty pounds. In your brave new world, you're basically fated to become one of my domestic servants, or at the very least Thuryl's (for whom all of the above can be increased, except the aspect of physical strength). Either of us would be gracious enough to let you call yourself 'Emperor' whatever, but do it on your own time (what little there winds up being) or we're liable to have you flogged for behaving uncouthly in the presence of your betters. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:04: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Randomizer Law Bringer Member # 6785	written Monday, October 30 2006 21:57 Profile #86 Going with the difference between basic and applied research. Einstein is best know for his basic research into relativity, gravity, and combining field equations into one unified theory (that he never finished). However while in Europe Einstein developed and patented a thermoacoustic refrigeration system. It's mostly forgotten because it was never a commercial success. Now it's given that Einstein was intelligent because of all his work in basic science resulting in a Nobel prize. He was charismatic since he was able to persuade people to listen to his ideas and he was sought out for his influence. He had some ambition or he would still be working in a Swiss patent office. But even with all that he wasn't a business success. Meanwhile Bill Gates was a college dropout with a wealthy lawyer for a father. He wrote mediocre software that was considered poor by the programmers that he was later able to hire. He did have ambition and low morals that allowed him to turn a pirated operating system (DOS 1.0) into a multibillion dollar business by being at the right place and time (luck). He has since used part of that wealth to appease most of the people he has stolen from over the years to buy peace. Posts: 4643 \| Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:02 Profile Homepage #87 Alec, I totally forgot about you! Sorry. So, what is your argument exactly? Anti-killing? Yeah, I already said killing was bad. Pro-democracy? Well, this is an economic discussion, so I never really said what the government type was. Sure, why not democracy? I did say the government exists to protect the people, is that not serving them? If it fails to do so, I said the people form a new one. I also already said everyone deserved equal opportunity. What exactly is it you are trying to prove? What is your argument and where does it disagree with my own? I seriously am having trouble finding it in all those blind insults. MBA: You can have one of these and still end up a lowly bean counter if you lack the ambition and charisma. My father has many such people working for him. Finally, if you really are smarter and more charismatic than me, then so be it. I have no qualm about submitting to someone who has proven themselves to me. So far though... your not doing a very good job. Randomizer: quote: Me: What exactly do you expect me to do about this? Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? I don't understand what I am supposed to say to this. You had the same comments, i. My question is, how exactly are we supposed to compensate these scientists for something that we won't even know will be useful until decades later? What does this have to do with the economy anyway? [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:12: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156* \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:10 Profile Homepage #88 Oh, all this editing... [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:11: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Jumpin Salmon ? Man, ? Amazing Member # 5755	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:20 Profile #89 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: My father has many such people working for him. So do many people. In fact, I think you'll figure out that it isn't only the highest paid individual that has to have the most precise education. quote: Finally, if you really are smarter and more charismatic than me, then so be it. I have no qualm about submitting to someone who has proven themselves to me. So far though... your not doing a very good job. Actually, that was a pick-up line. It seems not to have worked, although it may in its new context. quote: Again: So far though... your not doing a very good job. Please, take a course in grammar. Too, to, two. Your, you're. It's simple and shows that you care about your thoughts and wish other people to understand them. Or you could be going for the complete uneducated look. Either's good. -------------------- quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing. Posts: 4114 \| Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Ephesos Law Bringer Member # 4153	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:21 Profile Homepage #90 For the moment, I'll just stick to my part of the argument here... the rest got spontaneously more complex. Anyway... quote: Originally written by Lego: Ephesos: Answers do vary, as they do with any theory. Honestly, do you have an answer that works every time? I'd like to hear it. That's a cop-out, and you know it. quote: Originally written by Lego: Yes, class stratification is the way to go. It promotes a greater work ethic... (screeching halt) Perpetuated despair and failure do not promote a good work ethic. quote: Originally written by Lego: ...if the government was giving out hand outs, what reason do people have to work hard or even keep a job? I'm thinking New Deal legislation here... let the government hand out jobs. But I kind of agree with you here. Hand outs are bad. Handing out jobs is better. quote: Originally written by Lego: As for satisfaction, if the teachers are satisfied with their pay (which is what we were talking about), then there is nothing to argue about here. Yes there is. You said they were weak for lacking ambition. I maintain that they're strong for sticking with an underpaid, underappreciated job which forms an integral part of society. quote: Originally written by Lego: Finally, compassion is for the weak. Where did compassion ever get anyone? It hurts not only the compassionate, but also the compassionees, as they will not work as hard if given the things they need. Hm... in that case... *DIE. I feel stronger already. :P (For the record, I'm all for calling one's statements and ideas idiotic, and do my level best to keep that separate from what I think of the person. So Lego, I don't think you're an idiot. I don't necessarily think you're a bad person. I'm just not sure I'd be able to listen to you talk in person for very long without vomiting.) -------------------- 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
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:22 Profile #91 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: What is your argument and where does it disagree with my own? I seriously am having trouble finding it in all those blind insults. They're not blind and they're not insults. I have seen an idiot and condescended to name him. There is a difference, and why you don't understand that is a matter of public record. quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: Finally, if you really are smarter and more charismatic than me, then so be it. I have no qualm about submitting to someone who has proven themselves to me. So far though... your not doing a very good job. It's not you who I have to prove myself to, dear. The job market isn't a protracted battle of wills where the strong submit to the weak, it's a market. And given what we've each demonstrated here, it's a market that would probably have me paying your meager wages. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:28: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:29 Profile Homepage #92 quote: Alec: And no, most government research isn't primarily in national security. Well, unless the vast majority of all other is scientific research, then you are mistaken. Yes, this graph is from 2001, but I'll wager that defense spending has probably gone up a little since then. quote: Alec: it's a market that would probably have me paying your meager wages May the best man win. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:34: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:35 Profile #93 That's where the most money for research goes, but the DoD's research budget is a tremendous money sink which periodically produces non-starters at taxpayer expense and private gain. Individual defense projects often have footprints well in excess of the civilian research budget, and have a characteristically miserable rate of success. Star Wars ate more money than pretty much every scientific endeavor of its lifetime put together, but suggesting it is somehow more research is, well, dumb - no surprise, then, that that's exactly what you seem to be implying. (Defense 'research' is characteristically a generous form of subsidy to various contractor groups that occasionally produces a useful or at least handsome military device.) Either you directly and wholly misunderstand the statistics you're quoting here - an epic act of idiocy, but you seem up to the challenge thus far - or you're just willing to use them to try and make crap up. In either case, I have once again proven myself your better. We are, by my count, now 8 and 0. I expect your morning coat to be immaculate, cretin. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:40: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:36 Profile Homepage #94 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? (...) What does this have to do with the economy anyway? quote: Originally written by Kelandon: *Did you just ask what pay rate* has to do with the economy? quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: No. Mmm-hmm. Yeah, I'm done here. You've stopped responding to my posts, anyway. Just mind the CoC, and I won't bother you anymore. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00**
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Monday, October 30 2006 22:36 Profile #95 quote: Sure, whatever. What exactly do you expect me to do about this? Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? I don't understand what I am supposed to say to this. You had the same comments, i. My question is, how exactly are we supposed to compensate these scientists for something that we won't even know will be useful until decades later? What does this have to do with the economy anyway? Well, I don't expect you to do anything except admit that basic research is vital to the health of the economy in the long term rather than discounting those who do it as "lame". Otherwise, what you say is tautology: society does not value it therefore it is not worthy of being valued by society. As for what we can do, we can offer incentives to get people to use their talents to go into basic research. It's difficult to reward these things because we don't know what needs to be rewarded until long after the fact. However, we can, as a society, actively encourage such things. As for the MBA vs. PhD, I pretty much agree with Alec minus the vulgarity. Business' goal is to make money, as such they tend to have lots of it. Since there are no rules restricting how much individuals can be paid, it is in the best interest of the company to give a decent share to attract and retain the best people. Scientific ventures tend to not have the lucrative cash flows big business does. As such, they cannot really afford to give the same sized piece of the pie their MBA counterparts do. It's not advantageous to them. Sure they want to keep good people, but you cannot pay money you do not have. The problem is basic science is not a money maker. Fortunately, enough people care about science enough such that it does not matter. So where does this get us, well, this is a negative consequence to the pure free market. It leads to people with an MBA to making more money than those with a PhD, despite the skill discrepency. Paying MBAs a greater share is much more advantageous (as they have money) than paying a PhD more (where money is more scarce). Bottom line, the free market is not perfect and treating it as such is no more than religious faith. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 22:40: Message edited by: i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Emperor Tullegolar Shaper Member # 7420	written Monday, October 30 2006 23:00 Profile Homepage #96 Alec: Are you trying to say that since government spending in defense is corrupt, it doesn't count? Are you going somewhere with any of this? Kelandon: You miserably misquoted me. You took the first quote out of context and in the second one you left out my explanation. i: I suppose I did say basic research was lame. I regret it, we were talking about something else at the time, and that statement was ignorant. I can't say I agree with you about offering incentives for scientists, however. They get paid well enough, as you said. Odds are most will not make a major breakthrough. Why reward something so fickle? Free Market: Do you think scientists would be better of under socialism? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156* \| Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Najosz Thjsza Kjras Lifecrafter Member # 6388	written Monday, October 30 2006 23:15 Profile #97 quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: Alec: Are you trying to say that since government spending in defense is corrupt, it doesn't count? Are you going somewhere with any of this? No; because it's corrupt, it counts for less than the funding numbers alone would indicate. If you could read, you would have discerned that. If. i: I suppose I did say basic research was lame. I regret it, we were talking about something else at the time, and that statement was ignorant. I can't say I agree with you about offering incentives for scientists, however. They get paid well enough, as you said. Odds are most will not make a major breakthrough. Why reward something so fickle? There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries; acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter, dumbass. Free Market: Do you think scientists would be better of under socialism?* Yes. I have tendered a prediction to Stareye as to your response, and a tentative line of reasoning to form the core of my own. Let's see how you do. Posts: 794 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Drew By Committee Member # 4233	written Monday, October 30 2006 23:48 Profile #98 Well hey there, Thracymachus Rand! Last I checked, life wasn't in black and white, but in a full spectrum of color. Power != money, and people who aren't so concerned with making money aren't necessarily weak. Consider just about every good teacher you may have had in your life. Do you think they were so concerned with making cash? Rest assured, if the focus of their lives were so narrow as to only value acquiring the almighty dollar, they wouldn't be there. Guess they're just unambitious weak suckers, what with finding fulfillment in something other than cash. MBAs make money by touching other people's money. You want to make a lot of money? It's easy - just go become a broker. 50% of them are beating the Dow some the time, and if you invest just moderately better than a monkey picking stocks at random off of the business page, you could be in that top 50% too. There you go! Sounds like a great life, and a great way to be a big winner. What your model fails to account for are soft values. The thrill of making a discovery could be priceless to the scientist, worth way more than any monetary compensation for it. Prestige has a certain value, as does being worthy of respect, or improving the lives of those around you. And really, what good does measuring the value of someone's life by the amount of money he made really get him in the end? You can't take it with you. It seems then to be a pretty silly thing to make the focus of your time on Earth - missing the forest for the trees. [ Monday, October 30, 2006 23:50: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 \| Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Tuesday, October 31 2006 03:51 Profile Homepage #99 This isn't my most constructive post ever, but it can't be helped: :rolleyes: -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00