Wealth.
Pages
| Author | Topic: Wealth. |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 04:15
Profile
quote:I just plan to get enough money so I can live off the interest. That way, I'd be able to contribute to this board 24/7 (though mostly by writing). But if someone wealthy showed you how to become wealthy, would you still hate them? quote:Or in my case, is on that road. I figured out that, through the miracle of compound interest, if you start off with $1, and it doubles 20 times, you end up with $1 million. Given that fact, I'm a little over halfway to becoming a millionnaire; my money only has to double about 7 or 8 more times. -------------------- Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so. If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you. Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 05:24
Profile
quote:Capitalism versus socialism is a false dichotomy. You need not adopt the whole system, so I'm not going to fall into this trap of saying either yes or no. The answer I can give is, both. quote:Fair enough on basic research. The offering incentives part is sort of what happens now. Government grants pay for research and their salaries. The issue is whether society should do this and to what degree. As for getting paid well enough, I said they get paid decently compared to other occupations. Fortunately, as I've also said, money is not the primary reason people go into fundamental science, it's for less tangible things. Otherwise all scientists would be engineers or applied scientists, they tend to make more. Additionally, fundamental science requires a lot more than money, it requires excellent rigorous training and education. Why reward something so fickle? Well, let's think about insurance. You pay for insurance in case something bad happens, you are not totally wiped out financially. You can, in principle, pay for one month and something happens, pay for five years before an event, or never have an occurrence. Either way you are paying a nominal amount to offset a big risk. Fundamental science is anaolgous to this. However, rather than pay for reimbursement if something bad happens, we pay for a possible benefit. Yeah, it's an expensive gamble, but the payoffs are immense. To use our example of quantum mechanics, had it not been discovered, life would be substantially different today. Entire industries would not exist, we would not have many modern appliances, it's likely that many lives are saved because of fast digital communication. The payoff is so huge, I honestly think it's immeasurable. Now all discoveries are not going to be huge, but the occasional discovery tends to have high yield. Yeah, I suppose we throw a lot of money at it, but I don't like the alternative of not having it. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 07:01
Profile
quote:Oh hush it, you classicist :P Edit: Fixed quote [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 07:24: Message edited by: Kitana ] Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 09:03
Profile
Homepage
Hmmm, the Marlenny-Kelandon flirtation is an amusing sideshow here. quote:I don't care whether they're wrong or not, his statements are morally repulsive. How nice to see Alec giving ET a bit of what he deserves. Edit: clarification [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 09:07: Message edited by: Micawber. ] -------------------- "I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 10:30
Profile
Homepage
Lego, I'm waiting for you to respond to my post. Otherwise, I'll have to crash the other half of the debate. -------------------- 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 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 10:49
Profile
quote:That is because he moves within a domination - submission pattern. If you read his posts carefully, you'll find that he has the greatest difficulties to grasp an argument that does not blend into this inner landscape, to the extent that he is sometimes not aware of it at all. Thuryl had him nailed, but he didn't recognize it, nor did he realize the why. And that is not so much repulsive as it is seriously disturbing. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 10:56
Profile
Homepage
Tullegolar, first, thank you for maintaining civil tone of discussion despite insults directed at you. In your posts about science and particularly MBAs vs. PhDs comparisons, it seems you imagine scientists as anti-social inventors locking themselves in their labs working on arcane gadgets. This image is very far from what a real professors’ job is like. In fact, famous professors are a lot more similar to businessmen than to the inventors you think of. Every research professor leads a staff of grad students and lab assistants (PhD equivalent of your “bean counters”) and has to do a lot of fundraising every year. In fact, success of professors at American universities is determined more by how much money they can bring in than by how brilliant their ideas are. In the business world, startups have to do two or three major rounds of fundraising. A university professor has to do fundraising (writing grant proposals, looking for corporate partners, etc.) every year. So by your definition of “charisma”, successful university professors have at least as much of it as leaders of successful startup companies. They also raise money, manage large staff, market their “product” (promoting their research), etc. However, these professors get paid orders of magnitude less than leaders of startups. For a most obvious example, let’s look at the people who got this year’s Nobel Prize in physics. The research for which they got the prize was conducted by a team of about a thousand people. So these people have enough “charisma” and “ambition” to lead a large organization (including everything from fundraising to directing research to personnel decisions) and have enough intelligence to conduct the best research in the world. The most comparable people in the business world would be founders of Google. These people also lead a team of about a thousand people (it recently expanded to several thousands), making one of the most advanced products of the day. The founders of Google got billions of dollars for their work. The Nobel Prize-winning scientists got a million. Both groups showed equal “charisma” securing funding for and leading large organizations. Both had the intelligence to perform some of the best research in the world. However, the leaders of team working on applied research got paid a thousand times more than the leaders of a team working on basic research. Going back to the MBAs v. PhDs comparison, the right comparison for MBAs who work as lowly bean counters is PhDs who work as lab assistants. If you make that comparison, you’ll see that MBAs still get a lot more money than PhDs, despite doing simpler job. The final question is “whose work is more beneficial to society?” And here the answer is also obvious: if there was no Bill Gates, we’d be using Apple computers. If there was no Google, we’d be using Yahoo search engine. If there was no Charles Babbage, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because there would be no computers in the world. Charles Babbage, a nineteenth century scientist, invented the principles of modern computers long before there was technology to build one. Without his work, we would still be using arithmometers and typewriters. (His research was the kind of major breakthrough that would never happen if all smart people went into business working on improving typewriters.) Charles Babbage died in poverty, while Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. The point of this example is to show you the failure of the free market. As I’ve described, the people leading basic research have at least as much “charisma”, ambition, leadership and management skills, and intelligence as the people leading startup companies. However, they get paid up to a thousand times less for doing work that is more beneficial to society than the work of businessmen. PS As for socialism vs. capitalism, it’s a false dichotomy. Communism is as repulsive to me as the kind of unrestrained capitalism you seem to be advocating. (I emigrated from Russia, so I’ve seen what 75 years of building communism can do to a country.) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 11:03
Profile
That's part of his problem, ef, and I think your personal philosophy explains perfectly why it's the only part you recognize. I had him pinned perfectly. My point for the last few posts has been this: his little marketroid world doesn't have a place for anything except masters and slaves, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that he ain't no damn master. This is part of the randroid philosophy arc. The terrifying revelation that slavish devotion to the market won't make you anything more than another cog in it - that it has no place for the supermen they all aspire to be - leads naturally to information-technology philoso-jargon immersion. In other words, as soon as he realizes the existing 'free market' he so loves has no place for ideas, a 'marketplace of ideas' will crop up as a way of insulating himself from the way human beings actually work. That's the only part of the arc I'm familiar with. I guess later he becomes a transhumanist so he can still be racist in public. Ah, libertarians. Z: I don't want to be put into the position of defending Leninism, but '75 years of building communism', to be fair, were also 75 years of building a modern country from the ground up. That kind of thing is never healthy; a White government under the same conditions would probably have killed as many people as the Reds - perhaps more - and the only beneficiaries of the 'modernity' would have been the reigning elite. It's not even that you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette; there is just no way Russia coming out of 1922 - or 1917, or 1914, or, hell, 1900 - could have avoided cracking a hell of a lot of eggs. At the very least they got a decent enough omelette out of it. [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:11: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 11:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:I was going to stay out of this, but I've never seen Tullegolar use any sort of racism. What makes you say he's racist? -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 12:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:There are two questions here: 1) how backwards was early XXth century Russia, and 2) whether it was possible to get to where we are today without killing millions of people. 1. Based on the information that became available after collapse of USSR, Russia of 1913 was not as far behind America as Russia of 1985. Russia did begin industrializing relatively late, but the process was already well under way by the time it was disrupted by years of wars (WWI, followed by Civil War). It's hard to get accurate information from under all the spin, but I am pretty sure that overall Russia wasn't far behind America at the start of last century. (As an example, both countries abolished slavery at about the same time.) 2. America handled industrialization as well as Russia without need for killing millions of people in concentration camps and by starvation from forced collectivization. (The tens of millions numbers of Stalin's victims are obviously exaggerated, but most reasonable people agree that he killed at least several million people.) For example, both in America and in Russia most of the farming is now done on massive industrial farms. However, America got there without the need to kill over a million people in forced collectivisation. While it was painful for small farmers in America to lose their livelihood, it wasn't as painful as being sent into concentration camp or starving in a famine in USSR. PS Talking about Leninism, Lenin himself recongized the need for private interpreneurship and allowed small business under "New Economic Policy" (NEP) in late 1920s. Unfortunately, after his death the hard-line wing of communist party led by Stalin won the power struggle and we know how that turned out. EDIT: This post was talking about industrialization and collectivisation, rather than current economic situation, so I didn't mention that by "what 75 years of building communism can do to a country" I meant the current economic situation, with most industry technologically backwards and incapable of meeting consumer demand. (Chronic shortages of 1980s didn't disapper with USSR's collapse. The main change was that now the limiting factor became availability of money. So while shops are now filled with goods, most people still can't have them, now due to lack of money.) [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:09: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 12:47
Profile
Homepage
Ephesos: Handing out jobs is good, I agree. But why have the government give out jobs when you could just cut taxes so that businesses can hire more people themselves? New Deal legislation was government regulation to fix the economy after government regulation had already screwed up the economy with tariffs. It was a special situation. Drew: I suppose if it is someone's ambition to not make money (this is what your saying right?) then I guess you are correct, I can't say they are weak if they don't make the money. I am not so sure what you accomplished by proving this but whatever. *i: You keep telling me scientists are treated unfairly under capitalism. This may be true, but if you can not name something better then you can't keep saying capitalism is bad. The insurance analogy was interesting, but, like insurance, it wasn't the most convincing. Insurance companies screw people over all the time. Zevis: Your right, I failed to acknowledge that scientists could be charismatic; they can be. Also, you right, just as *i was, when he said basic research was necessary for the developments that actually make the money in the future. However, my question still stands: how are basic researchers supposed to be compensated? Should a scientist that goes his entire life discovering nothing get as much as someone who makes a breakthrough (how it is today with government grants) or should the ones that make breakthroughs be rewarded for what their discoveries may yield in the future (how it works nowhere, and I'm not sure how this would be implemented)? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 13:30
Profile
Homepage
A little late, but your graph of government spending isn't research. We already know that a huge part of the budget goes to defense, but a lot of that is just training and equipping troops, not making new things. It's quite probable that research grants also go to military applications, but the government is an integral part of virtually all basic research thanks to grants. Also, Zeviz, thank you for articulating the role of charisma in science perfectly. The most successful scientists often don't actually spend any time at the lab bench anymore. Tully, what we're saying isn't that we have a better system for compensating scientists. We're saying that your strong vs. weak dichotomy is fundamentally flawed. The most able tend to rise to the top in any specific field and organization, but across fields and organizations compensation has little correlation with talent or training. Training has nothing to do with personal merit and everything to do with background and ubringing. The result is a world in which unbridled capitalism with limited government stifles all substantial progress, stratifies society, and locks everyone into the class into which they're born. So yes, limited socialism is better. Pay the scientists fair wages and pay the MBAs fair wages too; they'll still make more, but not to the absurd levels possible even under the current system. Keep the government well funded and strong: government, for all its admitted inefficiencies, can do some things that business cannot, and those things are critical. —Alorael, who would suggest not letting applied science or successful businesses make staggering profits if that wouldn't kill all business. As he's already said, people need to believe that they can make a killing through luck and talent. Obscene profit is a relative term, though, so the ideal is to make people think they're absolutely filthy rich with as little as possible. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 13:33
Profile
quote:Libertarians not only believe the free market will solve everything, they believe it has solved everything. His argument that some people just basically deserve less money is an acknowledgement and justification of pay discrepancies by race. I don't know what they call that where you're from, but 'racism' fits it pretty well, don't you think? quote:What we're doing is called critique. While none of us, nor indeed any group of us, have the superhuman insight and breadth of knowledge necessary to prescribe a total system of the economy, we have more than enough to poke yours with more holes than your astonishingly meager intellect. None of the participants of this discussion could agree on what would constitute an ideal economy. Zeviz's would be fairly close to yours, mine fairly close to the red bogeyman you like to frame every question of economic critique around, and Stareye's somewhere in the middle. But we can all agree that trying to turn it into a dichotomy of pure, wonderful free markets versus horrible, evil socialism is retarded. I am also willing to go one step further and explain to any curious observers that you believe in that dichotomy because you are, yourself, retarded - but I am alone in that because Zeviz is a coward and Stareye's position of authority forbids him from being so honest. [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 13:43: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 14:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:Just because the justification is there doesn't make him a racist. Do I agree with his philosophy? No! But he wasn't referring to a single race. He was referring to human-kind as a whole. Basically, Tullegolar's philosophy is a glorified version of 'survival of the fittest.' The way he would run a country reflects on that. Also, I said this in another forum, and I'll say it again, no form of government is flawless. No matter which government you look at, they all have their pros and cons. So is it really fair to come after a single person for what his idea of government would be? Also, justification is a very tricky thing. Mainly because it has more to do with how you think. By all rights and purposes, someone who has just been robbed may feel 'justified' in retaliating against the assailant. But then, maybe they won't. Also, just because someone feels justified to do something doesn't mean they will do it. If everyone acted just because the felt said action was 'justified', the world would be a very different place, and not in a good way. Also, the term 'justified' varies from person to person. If the same event happened to two different people, one might feel justified into taking action, and one might not. Finally, Tullegolar has, to my knowledge, never spoken out against any race. He may be a racist, but the fact is that we don't know. It would be morally wrong to assume something of him when we don't have any basis in fact that it's true. Truly, justification is only what you perceive it to be. Just like you perceived Tullegolar to be a racist, and just like how I felt justified in making this post. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2339
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 15:00
Profile
quote:That depends on how they use their money, not how much money they have. Seeing as how I have the luck of a footless rabbit, I'm not sure if any 'get rich schemes' would work for me, short of someone deciding to give me the money right there and then. -------------------- -Zephyr Tempest, your personal entertainer Posts: 1779 | Registered: Monday, December 9 2002 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 15:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:The current system, as flawed as it is, is probably as good as we can do under the circumstances. The main point of my example was to show you that there are "strong" people who fit every bit of your definition of strength, but do not make much money. So completely free market does not always reward the ones who are most deserving. quote:It might not be apparent from the few political arguments I've been involved in here, but my economic views are pretty similar to what you percieve *i's to be. (around -2 on economic axis of political compass) quote:Do not confuse civility with cowardice. Lobbing random insults is always the easiest thing to do, but it shuts down any meaningful conversation. For example, Tulegolar has shown willingness to admit that there are inconsistencies in his view of the world, which means that this conversation is not completely pointless, unless it degenerates into kindergarden-style namecalling. And while we are at it, brainwashing is much more likely explanation for Tullegolar's views. (His economic education apparently missed concepts such as "externalities", boom/bust cycles of the market, etc. As for his moral education, let's not even go there.) I remember the one-dimentional world view that was installed in students' heads in Soviet schools, so I can understand somebody being equally brainwashed in the opposite direction. [ Tuesday, October 31, 2006 15:39: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 16:14
Profile
I dunno how CEOs and all live, but even moderately successful professors get at least upper-middle-class income, with tenure (in some countries) and better than tenure (in others). (Tenured professors can lose their jobs if their whole departments are closed, but in places where professors are civil servants, the whole country would have to close.) They get paid to talk for hours about things they know about and like, while students listen respectfully. They go to conferences in nice places. And they have time, for decades on end, to work on whatever they think might be important. They mostly work pretty long hours, but that's not so bad when most of your work is yours to chose. Professors are essentially self-employed but with job security. It's nice work if you can get it. Rich people might pay a lot to be able to live like this. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 16:35
Profile
Homepage
Ah, I see Lego's ego is getting inflated by the discussion... or am I misreading the new moniker? quote:Because I'd rather see the government use the vast resource that is unemployed Americans to fix up the broken parts of the country. Fix some roads, clean up some schools, replant some forests... Cutting taxes will just allow businesses to make more obscene profits with the same numbers employed. Not to mention the fact that even if they do hire more people, it will be to their own end and not one that benefits the country (unless you're predictably focusing on the economic angle). And if I hear a single reference to trickle-down economics used as a counter-idea, I'll scream. And Lego, the Great Depression was a worldwide depression. The world economy just burned out after WW1. So it wasn't caused by tariffs. It was simply the fact that everyone's economy hit the red at the same time. quote:Nioca, it's just that Lego's idea is more flawed than most others I'm aware of. Thus, I feel perfectly fine criticizing it. -------------------- 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 18:33
Profile
I was late getting into this discussion, but ET's original premesis about those that gain the most wealth was fundamentally flawed. My example of Einstein vs. Bill Gates was to show that the three things ET thought would be most important - intelligence, charisma, and ambition do not produce the result of great wealth. Luck and usually a lack of good moral character has usually led to the large super fortunes in history. I'm not saying all people that got wealthy were corrupt, but most of the examples used here had a great degree of corruption and luck in that the industries they are known for came about at exactly the right time. J. D, Rockerfeller and oil used monopoly control to drive out most competition. The only company that Standard Oil couldn't beat before its breakup was the European monopoly Shell Oil. Bill Gates got his break in that Microsoft was adopted by IBM instead of the company that IBM was planning to use. Since then the company has been known for copying its competition and blocking their efforts to compete. Rewarding basic researchers ahead of knowing the usefulness of their contributions is hard. Some ideas will never be worth anything or it may take a hundred years before they can be applied. That's why there is a such a disparity in salaries between those that work can be quantified now and those that are only speculation. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, October 31 2006 23:13
Profile
I think a lot of the problem here is that the actual value of large sums of money is not linear. The great scientists of recent history, and the great artists and so on, have generally been perfectly comfortable financially, and have enjoyed a lot of perks that would be worth vast sums if they could be bought. If they had been given Gatesian fortunes, I don't think many of them would have had any interest in the extra billions. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 05:17
Profile
It all comes down to soft values. My best friend's brother, an astrophysicist, got to work with the Hubble as a part of a post-doc at the University of Chicago. I'm not a physicist myself, but how valuable an opportunity must that be for academics in that field? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 09:02
Profile
quote:You have that kind of luck too? That's why I avoid the "get rich overnight" crap myself; the only one who gets any real money from those is the person who operates it. My plan for getting rich basically takes just a little money and a lot of time. Here it is: 1) Spend less than you make. 2) Invest in the stock market (or whatever), reinvesting any dividends along the way. 3) Wait 30-40 years, checking on your investment(s) annually, and making adjustments as needed. 4) Retire a millionnaire. :D It looks like a scam and sounds a bit naive, but it works. I figured out one time that had I known at age 18 what I didn't learn until I was 25, I'd probably have close to a 6-figure net worth by now. -------------------- Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so. If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you. Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 09:10
Profile
Homepage
I, at least, don't think that wealth correlates with quality of life. My objection is to Egol's decision to rank everyone's worthiness by their ability to earn. Earning power isn't happiness or "strength," and for that matter "strength" isn't happiness either. —Alorael, who is sure that science has great perks. Since scientists are largely required to be smart enough to do something else, there has to be a reason they want to go into science and stay there. Perks and job satisfaction are big draws. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 11:25
Profile
Homepage
Trickle Down: I think I said this before but no one responded. What is the argument against trickle down? I hear people whine about how it doesn't work all the time but I have not yet seen the argument for why. Please enlighten me. Einstein: I was under the impression this guy did well for himself moneywise. Is this wrong? Happiness: You can be weak and still be happy. I defined weak and strong in terms of being successful economically. Someone can flip burgers their whole life and still be the happiest person in the world. Obviously, if your happy no matter what then suddenly this whole argument becomes inconsequential. The Mystic, how to become a millionaire: I noticed you said spending less than you make is a good way to become a millionaire. Really, most obscenely rich people borrow lots of extra cash to achieve this. This is why one day you'll hear about Donald Trump being bankrupt and the next day he'll be back on top. It's all about taking educated risks (intelligence and ambition). Moniker: It was Halloween, I wanted to go as something scary. Anyone get it? Edit: I used a triple negative... wow. [ Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:27: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Wednesday, November 1 2006 11:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:As in the roman reference? I got it, but I didn't find it particularly frightening. -------------------- I tried to think of something witty to put here. Needless to say, I failed. Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |