The richer get richer

For those of you who support the accumulation of unlimited wealth. This is further proof that rich people are completely detached from reality. Once we keep delegating the problems of this world to be fixed by rich people we are basically telling people who are not affected by those problems (and can in fact be benefited by them) to care enough to do something about them. This is the problem on relying in oil companies, free market, saving banks from bankruptcy, charity, etc, no real problem is fixed by them because they just don't care, what they really care about is to convince people around the world to let them keep their money, accumulating that huge amount of wealth they do and to somehow make everybody think that it is good for humanity. Of course the financial crisis affects more the poor and they become poorer while the richer become richer and that's how it is always going to be unless things change drastically.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100622/lf_nm_life/us_wealthreport

I want to marry rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98958txVSrE

To quote Leonard Cohen,

'The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, that's just how it goes. Everybody knows'

This problem will likely never go away as there is no plausible solution. There will always be a bourgeoisie ready to assume control of the lower classes. As much as I support the notion of an egalitarian society, getting one to materialise is very difficult and getting one to function is practically impossible.

And then spelling, grammar and punctuation jumped off a bridge.super_mario_128

Why in the world should I have to convince you to let me keep what is mine?

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

The struggles of the poor have very little to do with the lack of wealth available. Generally, struggles are self-induced. And if they aren't directly, they are by like-minded people.

If you're going to commit to living in a particular society, you must do what its inhabitants require, to support yourself.

People are only rich because they are fully embedded in reality. That is, they observe and adapt to their environment.

Ultimately, "the more someone has, the less another can have at a given time" is the case. But it applies to everyone. If you want more, eat the competition.

It's not immoral. It's called accepting responsibility and adapting to life.

The rich get richer because they commit their lives to being able to. The poor stay where they are because they commit to other things, yet expect the same services and societal success that only exist through the economic system.

It's unfortunate, but those who stay poor deserve it. It's self-evident.

Ok then..

It was mostly liberals who supported bailing banks and other firms out. Any real conservative was against it...

And actually, it's false, the rich don't get richer. The stats are there, but you have to look at them over a longer period than 1 year...Do some research then come back, k?

Also, many rich people get richer because they continue to do the things that made them rich in the first place, while many poor people stay poor because they continue to do the things that made them poor in the first place.

A very small percentage of high-income people started out rich.

ITT, looting people is rationalized.

I want to marry rich.

entropyecho

To quote Leonard Cohen,

'The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, that's just how it goes. Everybody knows'

This problem will likely never go away as there is no plausible solution. There will always be a bourgeoisie ready to assume control of the lower classes. As much as I support the notion of an egalitarian society, getting one to materialise is very difficult and getting one to function is practically impossible.

the_new_neo

There is an OBVIOUS solution, actually: do what the rich did to get rich. If your basis of life quality has to do with things specifically found through a society's economic system, you must adhere to that system. It's obvious.

Obviously, there isn't a natural balance of social power. But that's the weak-mindedness/ stupidity of the poor's fault. However, in many societies there is an electoral process. That can and is used by the weak (because of their significant mass) to possibly take charge from one end and trickle down.

The most likely reason the change won't happen is because most voters are stupid. For instance, they put an inept, incompetant, dummy into offic in the US because the voters allowed themselves to prioritize public personality over all. They put in a moron because he campaigned his social-awareness...

The poor don't help themselves. Therefore, even if we did give them a clean slate, their lack of aptitude would place them in a bad position again.

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".

Ever hear someone say in a game," I don't want to do that. That's gay Those are the poor people of that game.

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

The struggles of the poor have very little to do with the lack of wealth available. Generally, struggles are self-induced. And if they aren't directly, they are by like-minded people.

If you're going to commit to living in a particular society, you must do what its inhabitants require, to support yourself.

People are only rich because they are fully embedded in reality. That is, they observe and adapt to their environment.

Ultimately, "the more someone has, the less another can have at a given time" is the case. But it applies to everyone. If you want more, eat the competition.

It's not immoral. It's called accepting responsibility and adapting to life.

The rich get richer because they commit their lives to being able to. The poor stay where they are because they commit to other things, yet expect the same services and societal success that only exist through the economic system.

It's unfortunate, but those who stay poor deserve it. It's self-evident.

Sudsy86_

It was mostly liberals who supported bailing banks and other firms out. Any real conservative was against it...

And actually, it's false, the rich don't get richer. The stats are there, but you have to look at them over a longer period than 1 year...Do some research then come back, k?

Also, many rich people get richer because they continue to do the things that made them rich in the first place, while many poor people stay poor because they continue to do the things that made them poor in the first place.

A very small percentage of high-income people started out rich.

SpartanMSU

Nailed it! A more concise version of what I said.

Also, your last statement is the strongest evidence for the universal ability to control your fate.

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

The struggles of the poor have very little to do with the lack of wealth available. Generally, struggles are self-induced. And if they aren't directly, they are by like-minded people.

If you're going to commit to living in a particular society, you must do what its inhabitants require, to support yourself.

People are only rich because they are fully embedded in reality. That is, they observe and adapt to their environment.

Ultimately, "the more someone has, the less another can have at a given time" is the case. But it applies to everyone. If you want more, eat the competition.

It's not immoral. It's called accepting responsibility and adapting to life.

The rich get richer because they commit their lives to being able to. The poor stay where they are because they commit to other things, yet expect the same services and societal success that only exist through the economic system.

It's unfortunate, but those who stay poor deserve it. It's self-evident.

Sudsy86_

Frankly I found what you said a little naive. Of course some less fortunate people can be blamed for their own downfall, especially in capitalist societies. But really a lot of poor people have very few oppurtunities and are incapable of climbing the social ladder, no matter how talented or potentially talented they are, and through no fault of their own.

Also, not all rich people are self made. I know plenty of stiff upper middle class 'fat cat' types who, by virtue of a large inheritance, or a fluke dabbling in the property market suddenly think they're better than Mr. Joe Casual because his pockets are lined with dollar bills. They didn't 'adapt' to life.

If you want to adopt that kind of mentality and apply it to an economic system, the only way it can function fairly is with 100% equal oppurtunities to every social class. And unless someone has glued a pair of dollar bills over your eyes, that is simply not the case, in America or anywhere. The rich do get richer, and its there fault that there is a repressed lower class in almost every country.

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".Sudsy86_

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".Sudsy86_

This is what I think of when I think of the wealthy these days...

Enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9OnafPmBUI&playnext_from=TL&videos=R85TOCwL2mk

Capitalism promotes nothing, but more corruption and more greed in a continuous cycle.

[QUOTE="the_new_neo"]

To quote Leonard Cohen,

'The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, that's just how it goes. Everybody knows'

This problem will likely never go away as there is no plausible solution. There will always be a bourgeoisie ready to assume control of the lower classes. As much as I support the notion of an egalitarian society, getting one to materialise is very difficult and getting one to function is practically impossible.

Sudsy86_

There is an OBVIOUS solution, actually: do what the rich did to get rich. If your basis of life quality has to do with things specifically found through a society's economic system, you must adhere to that system. It's obvious.

Obviously, there isn't a natural balance of social power. But that's the weak-mindedness/ stupidity of the poor's fault. However, in many societies there is an electoral process. That can and is used by the weak (because of their significant mass) to possibly take charge from one end and trickle down.

The most likely reason the change won't happen is because most voters are stupid. For instance, they put an inept, incompetant, dummy into offic in the US because the voters allowed themselves to prioritize public personality over all. They put in a moron because he campaigned his social-awareness...

The poor don't help themselves. Therefore, even if we did give them a clean slate, their lack of aptitude would place them in a bad position again.

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".

Ever hear someone say in a game," I don't want to do that. That's gay Those are the poor people of that game.

What laughable assertions you make. What exactly is it that the rich do to get rich that poor people are supposed to be doing? Cornering markets by using government influence to muscle out their biggest competition? Inherit significant fortunes and use political clout to do away with as many taxes as they can in order to accumulate more wealth? Manipulate markets through underhanded buisiness practices and risky speculation? Ship jobs to countries who pay a fraction of a living wage to desperately poor individuals to cut costs and prevent industrious individuals in countries who actually give a damn about quality of life from competing?

The age of entrpeneurs is over, there is no such thing in America anymore. Large corporations have all the markets cornered, they can muscle anyone they want out of business, they can spend all they want on political campaigns, they can do anything. Furthermore, they control many of the systems used for advancement in our society including post high school education. Even the people in our society whose fortunes came from entrepeneurism are creating an environment that is extremely nonconducive to new entrepeneureal breakthroughs. McDonalds is a perfect example, it started out as a small restauarant and became a worldwide chain. However, the chances of someone else duplicating that success are far more slim than they were for the founder of McDonalds because of market saturation. There could be someone who is great with money and has an amazing restauratnt hat does everything McDonalds does only better, but he won't get anywhere near the success of McDonalds because McDonalds and similar restaurants have filled the market with similar chains that survive by spending millions upon millions of dollars on ad revenue and keeping the market devoid of as much competition as possible.

The rich are not smart and assertive, the rich are profiteering and advantageous. Simply being rich does not mean they contributed something meaningful to society, it simply means they know how to make money by whatever means that might entail. Conversely, the poor are neither, weak, lazy, or stupid. The assertation that they are lazy is especially greivous, as the upper cla$$ relies on the labor of the poor to keep delivering them more wealth. The masses may be ignorant as a generalization, but that is not entirely their fault. The high cost of an education, something which again is controlled by the wealthy, and the necessity of higher learning for most high paying jobs, yet again another factor controlled in part by the wealthy, preclude the majority of society from pursuing education beyond high school. Furthermore, this is not a matter that the rich are devoid of involvement in, they have a choice to further the education and betterment of society and try to make education more accessible for those who can't afford it, they choose to do exactly the opposite because keeping people in ignorance makes them money.

The biggest fault of the people is that they are not willing to do what is necessary to topple this burgeoning oligarchy. They allow themselves to be wooed into submission by cheap products, or by flashy technology. They allow themselves to be dependent on jobs controlled by people who see them as lines on a budget, and do not treat their own labor with respect to its proper value. They allow themselves to be taken in by preachers who talk about humility while siphoning money out of their wallets, and despite the fact that this humility is exactly what allows opportunistic wealthy elites to continue to take advantage of them. They allow themselves to be taken in by lunatics like Beck who spout sensationalist rhetoric with no true substance. In some of the earliest slave rebellions in America, Native Americans and indentured servatns joined with slaves to rise up against their oppressors, and to prevent this from becoming widespread the white upper cla$$ offered opportunity for advancement in society for Native Americans and indentured servatns.Subsequently, most of them ceased participation in slave revolts, not willing to risk their newfound place in society even if it was still beneath the white ruling cla$$. The same holds true of American workers, they will not sacrifice their piece of the pie to get a larger one, even if their piece is dwarfed in comparison to the upper cla$$'and completely disproportional to teh work they put in.

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

Sudsy86_

[QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]

[QUOTE="the_new_neo"]

To quote Leonard Cohen,

'The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, that's just how it goes. Everybody knows'

This problem will likely never go away as there is no plausible solution. There will always be a bourgeoisie ready to assume control of the lower classes. As much as I support the notion of an egalitarian society, getting one to materialise is very difficult and getting one to function is practically impossible.

theone86

There is an OBVIOUS solution, actually: do what the rich did to get rich. If your basis of life quality has to do with things specifically found through a society's economic system, you must adhere to that system. It's obvious.

Obviously, there isn't a natural balance of social power. But that's the weak-mindedness/ stupidity of the poor's fault. However, in many societies there is an electoral process. That can and is used by the weak (because of their significant mass) to possibly take charge from one end and trickle down.

The most likely reason the change won't happen is because most voters are stupid. For instance, they put an inept, incompetant, dummy into offic in the US because the voters allowed themselves to prioritize public personality over all. They put in a moron because he campaigned his social-awareness...

The poor don't help themselves. Therefore, even if we did give them a clean slate, their lack of aptitude would place them in a bad position again.

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".

Ever hear someone say in a game," I don't want to do that. That's gay Those are the poor people of that game.

What laughable assertions you make. What exactly is it that the rich do to get rich that poor people are supposed to be doing? Cornering markets by using government influence to muscle out their biggest competition? Inherit significant fortunes and use political clout to do away with as many taxes as they can in order to accumulate more wealth? Manipulate markets through underhanded buisiness practices and risky speculation? Ship jobs to countries who pay a fraction of a living wage to desperately poor individuals to cut costs and prevent industrious individuals in countries who actually give a damn about quality of life from competing?

The age of entrpeneurs is over, there is no such thing in America anymore. Large corporations have all the markets cornered, they can muscle anyone they want out of business, they can spend all they want on political campaigns, they can do anything. Furthermore, they control many of the systems used for advancement in our society including post high school education. Even the people in our society whose fortunes came from entrepeneurism are creating an environment that is extremely nonconducive to new entrepeneureal breakthroughs. McDonalds is a perfect example, it started out as a small restauarant and became a worldwide chain. However, the chances of someone else duplicating that success are far more slim than they were for the founder of McDonalds because of market saturation. There could be someone who is great with money and has an amazing restauratnt hat does everything McDonalds does only better, but he won't get anywhere near the success of McDonalds because McDonalds and similar restaurants have filled the market with similar chains that survive by spending millions upon millions of dollars on ad revenue and keeping the market devoid of as much competition as possible.

The rich are not smart and assertive, the rich are profiteering and advantageous. Simply being rich does not mean they contributed something meaningful to society, it simply means they know how to make money by whatever means that might entail. Conversely, the poor are neither, weak, lazy, or stupid. The assertation that they are lazy is especially greivous, as the upper cla$$ relies on the labor of the poor to keep delivering them more wealth. The masses may be ignorant as a generalization, but that is not entirely their fault. The high cost of an education, something which again is controlled by the wealthy, and the necessity of higher learning for most high paying jobs, yet again another factor controlled in part by the wealthy, preclude the majority of society from pursuing education beyond high school. Furthermore, this is not a matter that the rich are devoid of involvement in, they have a choice to further the education and betterment of society and try to make education more accessible for those who can't afford it, they choose to do exactly the opposite because keeping people in ignorance makes them money.

The biggest fault of the people is that they are not willing to do what is necessary to topple this burgeoning oligarchy. They allow themselves to be wooed into submission by cheap products, or by flashy technology. They allow themselves to be dependent on jobs controlled by people who see them as lines on a budget, and do not treat their own labor with respect to its proper value. They allow themselves to be taken in by preachers who talk about humility while siphoning money out of their wallets, and despite the fact that this humility is exactly what allows opportunistic wealthy elites to continue to take advantage of them. They allow themselves to be taken in by lunatics like Beck who spout sensationalist rhetoric with no true substance. In some of the earliest slave rebellions in America, Native Americans and indentured servatns joined with slaves to rise up against their oppressors, and to prevent this from becoming widespread the white upper cla$$ offered opportunity for advancement in society for Native Americans and indentured servatns.Subsequently, most of them ceased participation in slave revolts, not willing to risk their newfound place in society even if it was still beneath the white ruling cla$$. The same holds true of American workers, they will not sacrifice their piece of the pie to get a larger one, even if their piece is dwarfed in comparison to the upper cla$$'and completely disproportional to teh work they put in.

It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.

I don't see why people hate the idea of people having insane levels of wealth.

I personally would not care if a person became a trillionare if they got it through legal and fair ways.

And I live poor in a mold full house.

[QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

wstfld

And you deal with the cards you were dealt. Life isn't fair. You have to make the best with what you have. Like I said, an overwhelming majority of rich people don't start out rich. Look it up if you'd like.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

SpartanMSU

And you deal with the cards you were dealt. Life isn't fair. You have to make the best with what you have. Like I said, an overwhelming majority of rich people don't start out rich. Look it up if you'd like.

Frankly I found what you said a little naive. Of course some less fortunate people can be blamed for their own downfall, especially in capitalist societies. But really a lot of poor people have very few oppurtunities and are incapable of climbing the social ladder, no matter how talented or potentially talented they are, and through no fault of their own.the_new_neo

Also, not all rich people are self made. I know plenty of stiff upper middle class 'fat cat' types who, by virtue of a large inheritance, or a fluke dabbling in the property market suddenly think they're better than Mr. Joe Casual because his pockets are lined with dollar bills. They didn't 'adapt' to life.the_new_neo

If you want to adopt that kind of mentality and apply it to an economic system, the only way it can function fairly is with 100% equal oppurtunities to every social class. And unless someone has glued a pair of dollar bills over your eyes, that is simply not the case, in America or anywhere. The rich do get richer, and its there fault that there is a repressed lower class in almost every country.

the_new_neo

The game is dog-eat-dog. If you don't understand or accept that, you don't open yourself up to luck and causes.

It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.SpartanMSU

I don't see why people hate the idea of people having insane levels of wealth.

I personally would not care if a person became a trillionare if they got it through legal and fair ways.

And I live poor in a mold full house.

dercoo

This is the problem. This is a metaphor for the excessive disparity that dominates world culture. No one's arguing that certain people can't obtain wealth that is somewhat higher than what other people possess. The problem is the massive disparity in the amount of wealth possessed by the rich elite in comparison to the working cla$$, the ways in which that wealth is used to create more wealth at the expense of the working cla$$, the disregard for anything that impedes the accumulation of more profit, and the relatively small contributions the wealthy make to society in comparison to all the damage they do or potential good they could be doing with their wealth. I'm not sayingTony Heywardcan't have a bigger house than me, but why is it so much to ask that perhaps he sacrifice a room or two and make his mansion slightly smaller if it would mean housing someone who is living on the street?

It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.

SpartanMSU

you obviously don't keep up with reality, he's dead on.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] If you're born into a rich family you're starting the poker game with 10,000% more chips than the other guy. Its not a fair game. I'm not saying I agree with TC (I don't), but we're all not born equal. Many factors go into the outcome of life besides how you play the game. wstfld

And you deal with the cards you were dealt. Life isn't fair. You have to make the best with what you have. Like I said, an overwhelming majority of rich people don't start out rich. Look it up if you'd like.

I read some articles and books on that kind of stuff a while back. Just google it and I'm sure you'll find something. It's actually pretty interesting. There was like a 40 year study on the transfer/shifting of classes and it was interesting as well.

And I know some people just get lucky. That's just life. It still doesn't mean you have a right to their money just purely for the fact that you think that they have too much.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.

z4twenny

you obviously don't keep up with reality, he's dead on.

Do you even know anyone who's rich? Have you talked to someone who's rich before? I take it you haven't...

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.T_P_O

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks all rich people are the enemy and look like the monopoly guy.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]It seems like you have some fantasized idea of what a rich person is and what they do. You clueless buddy. Absolutely clueless.SpartanMSU

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks all rich people are the enemy and look like the monopoly guy.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] I'm totally swayed by your deep evaluation and complex analysis of his argument and your own propositions in your counter-argument(s).T_P_O

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks all rich people are the enemy and look like the monopoly guy.

I honestly don't feel like it right now.:)

It's going to be impossible to have an objective argument with him given what was in his first post.

@ Sudsy86_

Well said. I appreciate what your saying, but there aren't always equal oppurtunities and its not always possible to further your wealth no matter how charming your personality. To extend your FPS analogy, there are many people in the world who camp out at spawn points and get quick, easy kills. Every time someone wants to go forward, the moment they enter the game they are shot. And no one on their own team is willing to remove that enemy. So that player simply can't do anything. Dog-eat-dog is certainly not an ideal situation for humanity to be in.

I mean, there may be a playwrite who rivals the talents of Shakespeare walking around a slum, but he's not able to read or write so his talent is squandered. Its not his fault, and its not fair to blame him.

Its also important to remember that both of us are guilty of a great deal of generalisation. I know that not many rich people are very virtuous and made the most of their situation and partake in philantropic work and it was wrong of me to compare them to 'fat cats', but similary, many poor people are immensely talented but are a victim of the situation they were born into, where selfish, self obsorbed rich people are to blame.

Its also very easy to criticise and to point out problems, whats harder is to find solutions. I don't assume to say that capitalism is a perfect economic system, but until someone creates another one, its the best we've got. But whats essential, and whats often lacking, is equal oppurtunities, for everyone.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks all rich people are the enemy and look like the monopoly guy.

SpartanMSU

I honestly don't feel like it right now.:)

It's going to be impossible to have an objective argument with him given what was in his first post.

Yeah, and there's no possible way the same could be said about you, right?:roll: Oh, and nice attempt at equivocation, just wouldn't be a good OT argument without it.

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money. I also have a few relatively rich relatives, they also contribute nothing to society, in fact by way of their wacko religious rantings they actually are a detriment to society, and they also possess a false sense of entitlement, but on top of that they defend their bosses who are wealthier than them and who take advantadge of their work which show syou just how truly ****ed up this whole, "everything earns what they have," mentality truly is.

You go where the money is or can be. That's basically it. Just like in a FPS: you go where potential kills can be opened to you. You're focusing on the minority of extremely wealthy people. Manipulate markets? That a) takes smarts, and b) takes leverage. There's nothing wrong with market manipulation in of itself. Besides, each individual market is formed by whoever takes part in it. You cannot manipulate anything without it letting you. Markets are no different. Shipping jobs overseas is the alternative to what? Job lossage. Also, that's the inherent risk of prioritizing money, on any level. If a business does not do well in any particular quarter, it's easy to figure out why jobs might be loss until profits recoupe. You emotionally react to everything before thinking, don't you?

[QUOTE="theone86"]The age of entrpeneurs is over, there is no such thing in America anymore. Large corporations have all the markets cornered, they can muscle anyone they want out of business, they can spend all they want on political campaigns, they can do anything. Furthermore, they control many of the systems used for advancement in our society including post high school education. Even the people in our society whose fortunes came from entrepeneurism are creating an environment that is extremely nonconducive to new entrepeneureal breakthroughs. McDonalds is a perfect example, it started out as a small restauarant and became a worldwide chain. However, the chances of someone else duplicating that success are far more slim than they were for the founder of McDonalds because of market saturation. There could be someone who is great with money and has an amazing restauratnt hat does everything McDonalds does only better, but he won't get anywhere near the success of McDonalds because McDonalds and similar restaurants have filled the market with similar chains that survive by spending millions upon millions of dollars on ad revenue and keeping the market devoid of as much competition as possible.theone86

The rich are not smart and assertive, the rich are profiteering and advantageous. Simply being rich does not mean they contributed something meaningful to society, it simply means they know how to make money by whatever means that might entail. Conversely, the poor are neither, weak, lazy, or stupid. The assertation that they are lazy is especially greivous, as the upper cla$$ relies on the labor of the poor to keep delivering them more wealth. The masses may be ignorant as a generalization, but that is not entirely their fault. The high cost of an education, something which again is controlled by the wealthy, and the necessity of higher learning for most high paying jobs, yet again another factor controlled in part by the wealthy, preclude the majority of society from pursuing education beyond high school. Furthermore, this is not a matter that the rich are devoid of involvement in, they have a choice to further the education and betterment of society and try to make education more accessible for those who can't afford it, they choose to do exactly the opposite because keeping people in ignorance makes them money. theone86

What the hell are you talking about"doesn't mean they contributed to society..."? Who said anything about that? Why does that matter? Economics is a sub-game of a society, which is a sub-game in life. I'm talking about economics, STRICTLY. I never indicated I wasn't....When I say lazy, I'm using a word in reference to its context. Mental exortion and physical exortion are both essential for real change. Most laborers are obviously mentally lazy. If they weren't, they'd obviously know it would be better for them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. The wealthy use the labor of the poor because the poor are willing to be controlled by him for money. Why would the wealthy not do it? A better question is why do so many "hard-workers" let so many big-shots control them?

The biggest fault of the people is that they are not willing to do what is necessary to topple this burgeoning oligarchy. They allow themselves to be wooed into submission by cheap products, or by flashy technology. They allow themselves to be dependent on jobs controlled by people who see them as lines on a budget, and do not treat their own labor with respect to its proper value. They allow themselves to be taken in by preachers who talk about humility while siphoning money out of their wallets, and despite the fact that this humility is exactly what allows opportunistic wealthy elites to continue to take advantage of them. They allow themselves to be taken in by lunatics like Beck who spout sensationalist rhetoric with no true substance. In some of the earliest slave rebellions in America, Native Americans and indentured servatns joined with slaves to rise up against their oppressors, and to prevent this from becoming widespread the white upper cla$$ offered opportunity for advancement in society for Native Americans and indentured servatns.Subsequently, most of them ceased participation in slave revolts, not willing to risk their newfound place in society even if it was still beneath the white ruling cla$$. The same holds true of American workers, they will not sacrifice their piece of the pie to get a larger one, even if their piece is dwarfed in comparison to the upper cla$$'and completely disproportional to teh work they put in.theone86

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money.

theone86

Contribute little to society? They provided you the jobs you listed above didn't they?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] You could always attempt to de-bunk his arguments that you see as false or fallacious. But then again, I realise you're under no obligation to do so if your judgement is otherwise.theone86

I honestly don't feel like it right now.:)

It's going to be impossible to have an objective argument with him given what was in his first post.

Yeah, and there's no possible way the same could be said about you, right?:roll: Oh, and nice attempt at equivocation, just wouldn't be a good OT argument without it.

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money. I also have a few relatively rich relatives, they also contribute nothing to society, in fact by way of their wacko religious rantings they actually are a detriment to society, and they also possess a false sense of entitlement, but on top of that they defend their bosses who are wealthier than them and who take advantadge of their work which show syou just how truly ****ed up this whole, "everything earns what they have," mentality truly is.

Yeah, generalizing a whole group of people...

your credibility is lost to me.

I read some articles and books on that kind of stuff a while back. Just google it and I'm sure you'll find something. It's actually pretty interesting. There was like a 40 year study on the transfer/shifting of classes and it was interesting as well.

And I know some people just get lucky. That's just life. It still doesn't mean you have a right to their money just purely for the fact that you think that they have too much.

SpartanMSU

Do you remember the guys who ran the study?

I find the factors that go into success very interesting. The Malcom Gladwell book, "Outliers" got me very interested in the subject. Then I read a couple of books about people actually running personal experiments, "Nickel and Dimed" (poor people can't do it) and "Scratch Beginnings" (poor people can do it, and he started with less than the Nickel and Dimed chick).

This guy on the Colbert Report last night wrote another book on the subject that looks really interesting, "The Other Wes Moore". These two guys from the same neighborhood and having the same name, also have very similar backgrounds up through high school, I think. One guy is on death row for killing a cop and the guy that wrote the book is a Rhodes Scholar and a Bronze (or Silver) Star recipient from Afghanistan. Ordered it today off of Amazon. Should be some interesting reading.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I honestly don't feel like it right now.:)

It's going to be impossible to have an objective argument with him given what was in his first post.

dercoo

Yeah, and there's no possible way the same could be said about you, right?:roll: Oh, and nice attempt at equivocation, just wouldn't be a good OT argument without it.

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money. I also have a few relatively rich relatives, they also contribute nothing to society, in fact by way of their wacko religious rantings they actually are a detriment to society, and they also possess a false sense of entitlement, but on top of that they defend their bosses who are wealthier than them and who take advantadge of their work which show syou just how truly ****ed up this whole, "everything earns what they have," mentality truly is.

Yeah, generalizing a whole group of people...

your credibility is lost to me.

That's gonna keep me up at night.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money.

QuistisTrepe_

Contribute little to society? They provided you the jobs you listed above didn't they?

The former job is complete crap, if that's their contribution to society then they're not providing much. The latter job is not entirely dependent on the wealthy and is yet again part of an industrial complex created by the wealthy that does more harm than good. Finally, I said little, providing jobs to mechanics is relatively little in the grand scheme of the destruction they do in the name of profit and the potential good they could be doing with their money, thanks for cutting that part, I really love when people use only a small part of what i said in order to make their argument look better.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah, and there's no possible way the same could be said about you, right?:roll: Oh, and nice attempt at equivocation, just wouldn't be a good OT argument without it.

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money. I also have a few relatively rich relatives, they also contribute nothing to society, in fact by way of their wacko religious rantings they actually are a detriment to society, and they also possess a false sense of entitlement, but on top of that they defend their bosses who are wealthier than them and who take advantadge of their work which show syou just how truly ****ed up this whole, "everything earns what they have," mentality truly is.

theone86

Yeah, generalizing a whole group of people...

your credibility is lost to me.

That's gonna keep me up at night.

No but the rich man's boggy men will:roll:

On a side note what your opiion on

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Also, I do know rich people, I've caddied for them, I've fixed their cars, and with a few exceptions they're a bunch of arrogant *****s who contribute little to society in general, live in their self-contained bubbles, and walk around with a false sense of entitlement even though they make their livings screwing other people out of their money.

theone86

Contribute little to society? They provided you the jobs you listed above didn't they?

The former job is complete crap, if that's their contribution to society then they're not providing much. The latter job is not entirely dependent on the wealthy and is yet again part of an industrial complex created by the wealthy that does more harm than good. Finally, I said little, providing jobs to mechanics is relatively little in the grand scheme of the destruction they do in the name of profit and the potential good they could be doing with their money, thanks for cutting that part, I really love when people use only a small part of what i said in order to make their argument look better.

You really didn't post anything beyond what I quoted that was relevant to anything other than adding to your already grandiose hyperbole. The wealthy were the ones who's ingenuity afforded the average person a job to receive a paycheck. If you feel you have skills or abilities that could generate greater income for yourself, I suggest you put them to use.

I love it when people carpet bomb with hyperbole, cliches, and generalizations as a substitute for substance.