The richer get richer

[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.

You've caddied for them and fixed their cars! That doesn't mean your know them...:lol: You have a merely a superficial understanding of who they are and what they do...I actually KNOW rich people.

And no, the same can't be said about me when you believe all rich people are evil and look like the monopoly guy or something. It's impossible to have an intelligent argument with someone like that.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

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.

wstfld

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.

That study was in this book I was reading a while back. If I find it I'll let you know.

That's simply untrue, and you have made no attempt to prove its truth, simply expected it to be viewed as self-evident.

[QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]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?Sudsy86_

Why does it matter? Economics affects society, one group's well-being affects anothers, the ways that the rich go about attaining their wealth have profound effects on the rest of society, and what they do or don't do with their wealth does as well. You can't act like economics is a small, self-contained bubble, it's not.

Context, please, you're calling the majority of the world's poulation lazy because they don't have the means to exploit others in order to attain wealth the way the wealthy have exploited the rest of the world to attain their wealth. Mentally lazy? So it's not because they can't afford to go to college, it's not because they have bills to pay, or a family to feed? It's not because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and had to actually work to survive? This, again, is circular logic. The poor are poor because they are mentally lazy, but why are they mentally lazy? because they áren't educated? but why aren't they educated? because they're poor. Why would the wealthy not do it? Ethics,a sense of social resonsibility,a realization that they are where they are at least in part because of circumstance, belief that a united society can accomplish great things, take your pick.

[QUOTE="theone86"]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.Sudsy86_

Providers are not all wealthy, that's a gross generalization. Even with the wealthy ones, does providing a certain amount of jobs make up for the damage they do to society? Does the pension money shareholders in BP got justify what was done in order to attain that profit? No. The wealthy in society take advantage in order to attain more wealth. Corporations force smaller employers out of business, keep superior products off the market for fear of competition, ship jobs overseas in the name of greater profit, ravage the environment for profit, manipulate politics for profit, fight wars for profit, do anything they have to for profit. That's not emotion, that's fact, and just because I have a sense of responsiblity about this oes not invalidate my argument. Why should certain people gorge themselves while others starve to death? Why should some have enourmous mansions while others live in the streets? Why should access to education and health care be upper cla$$ commodities? You can't even defend that using pure reason, you say it's because they deserve it in yet another display of circular logic. Emotion does not invalidate my argument, and its presence does not make my entire argument based simply on emotion.

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?Sudsy86_

Manipulating markets doesn't always take smarts. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone can undercut your prices then it would be in your best interests to muscle that person out of business by using the government, or misusing it I should say, or banding together with competitors to control prices. Supply and demand isn't rocket science, you know. As for leverage, you're going in this pattern of circular logic where people gain more money by essence of having money, and by essence of having money means they deserve money, but why do they deserve it? Well, because they have it. It's simply not true that because someone has money that means they deserve it.

You can't manipulate anything without it letting you? Should I give you a moment to read that back to yourself and let the meaning sink in?

Shipping jobs overseas is an alternative to nothing, it's profiteering, plain and simple. Yes, they could see less profit than if they shipped jobs overseas, but why does that matter if there is still profit to be found elsewhere? Furthermore, you keep saying that the rich are rich because they have something useful to contribute to society, but in this case instead of selling a better product they're gaining a profit by harming two groups of people, the workers that could have had jobs in America and the people in the second country who are forced to work for slave wages because the company is taking advantage of their lack of social standing, not to mention the tax revenue and economic stimulation American jobs would bring. In short, it's pure exploitation.

I don't emotionally react to everything, there's plenty of logic in the statements I'm making, but in addition to an ego and an id I possess a superego and I don't immediately dismiss every argument that has any hint of emotion behind it.

[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.Sudsy86_

There's far more to this than simple planning and thinking ahead, like an omnipresent and pervasive emphasis on indiviual achievement over communal achievement in our society, And it doesn't only go one way, consumers may be partially to blame for their current condition, but providers still take advantage of them and they hold responsibility for that.

[QUOTE="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. Sudsy86_

That's simply untrue, and you have made no attempt to prove its truth, simply expected it to be viewed as self-evident.

[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.

SpartanMSU

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've caddied for them and fixed their cars! That doesn't mean your know them...:lol: You have a merely a superficial understanding of who they are and what they do...I actually KNOW rich people.

And no, the same can't be said about me when you believe all rich people are evil and look like the monopoly guy or something. It's impossible to have an intelligent argument with someone like that.

Thanks again for the equivocation, never gets old, you doing that. I know plenty of rich people on far more than a superficial level, I could dismiss your knowledge of rich people as being superficial too, seeing as all we have to go on is your account of your knowledge and it would be relatively easy for me to dismiss that as superficial, but I'm not as big into fallacies as you are and countering a fallacy with a fallacy is still a fallacy.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Yeah, generalizing a whole group of people...

your credibility is lost to me.

dercoo

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

What's my opinion? I thought I lost all my credibility with you?

It's always been a problem, and there's no solution. Socialism isn't one, Communism isn't one, there is no viable solution.

I don't think that Capitalism will last forever, though. Some new system will replace it eventually.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

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

QuistisTrepe_

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.

You and your ilk are doing the exact same thing, only you're doing it with statements that truly have no substance like, "the poor are lazy," whereas I'm basing my arguments in factual statements like, "the rich use their wealth to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others."

Skills, abilities, all subjective labels. No, I do not have a penchant for taking advantage of other people for my own profit, I didn't inherit a company, I don't have unlimited access to higher education or a system that allows me to manipulate government. If that makes me less skillful then fine, but I do not consider myself any less skillfull because of it.

whereas I'm basing my arguments in factual statements like, "the rich use their wealth to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others."

theone86

Facts? Really?

It's always been a problem, and there's no solution. Socialism isn't one, Communism isn't one, there is no viable solution.

I don't think that Capitalism will last forever, though. Some new system will replace it eventually.

SgtKevali

Yes I agree with you. I think people are overly content with capitalism. It needs to evolve.

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

kuraimen

It's always been a problem, and there's no solution. Socialism isn't one, Communism isn't one, there is no viable solution.

I don't think that Capitalism will last forever, though. Some new system will replace it eventually.

SgtKevali

Socialism, communism, capitalism, all words used to describe vague ideals. The largest part of the problem is a society based in arrogant, self-righteous, and archaic ideals and that presents social darwinism as natural. If you look at those three systems as mutually exclusive then no, not a single one of them offers a good solution. However, if a system is set up that balances the id, ego, and superego of society and incorporates the best ideas based on experimentation and results than a better society can be attained. I personally theorize that communal purchasing of necessities; strong, universal unionization with strict oversight; socialization of key markets pertaining to common well-being; a true manifestation of Marx' idea of the educated proliteriate; the absolution of super-powerful entities that exert undue control over certain markets; the allowance of free market mentality in certain markets to the point where their interests do not interfere in the common good; and a system of communal democratic governments comprising a network that bands together under the banner of a central government that does not excessively legislate makes use of the best ideas of all three.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

It's always been a problem, and there's no solution. Socialism isn't one, Communism isn't one, there is no viable solution.

I don't think that Capitalism will last forever, though. Some new system will replace it eventually.

Yes I agree with you. I think people are overly content with capitalism. It needs to evolve.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

whereas I'm basing my arguments in factual statements like, "the rich use their wealth to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others."

QuistisTrepe_

Facts? Really?

Yes, facts. BP cut corners on safety in rder to attain profit from offshore drilling, their profit came at the expense of the American environment which the whole world has been able to enjoy up to this point. Fossil fuels in general make a profit at the expense of the global environment, they also make a profit at the expense of entrepeneurs who might be able to successfully market hemp-ethanol cars if it weren't for fossil industry lobbying, a perfect example of how free market mentality (the ability to use your money as you see fit, i.e. influencing politics) results in the destruction of free market mentality (the systematic repression of a less expensive and more effective product, i.e. hemp fuel). When people go to Wal-Mart and buy cheap products there and give Wal-Mart their record profits, Wal-Mart is making those profits at the expense of people who had previously owned shops in the area, at the expense of workers who are underpaid for their labor, at the expense of out of work Americans who could be producing goods for Wal-Mart if Wal-Mart hadn't shipped jobs overseas, at the expense of workers in poor countries who work for pennies a day because Wal-Mart makes a profit that way. The Wealthy accumulate wealth at the expense of others, it's a fact.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

whereas I'm basing my arguments in factual statements like, "the rich use their wealth to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others."

theone86

Facts? Really?

Yes, facts. BP cut corners on safety in rder to attain profit from offshore drilling, their profit came at the expense of the American environment which the whole world has been able to enjoy up to this point. Fossil fuels in general make a profit at the expense of the global environment, they also make a profit at the expense of entrepeneurs who might be able to successfully market hemp-ethanol cars if it weren't for fossil industry lobbying, a perfect example of how free market mentality (the ability to use your money as you see fit, i.e. influencing politics) results in the destruction of free market mentality (the systematic repression of a less expensive and more effective product, i.e. hemp fuel). When people go to Wal-Mart and buy cheap products there and give Wal-Mart their record profits, Wal-Mart is making those profits at the expense of people who had previously owned shops in the area, at the expense of workers who are underpaid for their labor, at the expense of out of work Americans who could be producing goods for Wal-Mart if Wal-Mart hadn't shipped jobs overseas, at the expense of workers in poor countries who work for pennies a day because Wal-Mart makes a profit that way. The Wealthy accumulate wealth at the expense of others, it's a fact.

I'm not sure how exactly this proves your cliche to be a fact. You're piling on more generalizations and cliches. I can't buy in to such outlandish premises.

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

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[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

You've caddied for them and fixed their cars! That doesn't mean your know them...:lol: You have a merely a superficial understanding of who they are and what they do...I actually KNOW rich people.

And no, the same can't be said about me when you believe all rich people are evil and look like the monopoly guy or something. It's impossible to have an intelligent argument with someone like that.

Thanks again for the equivocation, never gets old, you doing that. I know plenty of rich people on far more than a superficial level, I could dismiss your knowledge of rich people as being superficial too, seeing as all we have to go on is your account of your knowledge and it would be relatively easy for me to dismiss that as superficial, but I'm not as big into fallacies as you are and countering a fallacy with a fallacy is still a fallacy.

Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who thinks all Muslims are terrorists. They're not going to look at anything objectively because they already have an emotional attachment to the subject. Understand?

[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.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

whereas I'm basing my arguments in factual statements like, "the rich use their wealth to accumulate more wealth at the expense of others."

QuistisTrepe_

Facts? Really?

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

That's gonna keep me up at night.

theone86

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

On a side note what your opiion on

What's my opinion? I thought I lost all my credibility with you?

Your like Fox or MSNBC news to me.

You lack credibility to me, but I listen for entertainment.

Yeah, dogmatic rants generally are not too convincing...

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

kuraimen

I don't see how the article supports any of your arguments, it sounds like just a rant on your part. The article only mentioned how the wealthy stay wealthy by being smart about their investments, hardly a reason to dislike anyone

Of course it does. But you bring up society meaninglessly. Someone who is economically smart will affect things beyond just economics. Why not call him smart, in general? The point of the word existing isn't to describe some great human; it's simply to qualify someone as being over a certain threshold. If you're denying that, you're a dillusional, bitter person.

[QUOTE="theone86"]Context, please, you're calling the majority of the world's poulation lazy because they don't have the means to exploit others in order to attain wealth the way the wealthy have exploited the rest of the world to attain their wealth. Mentally lazy? So it's not because they can't afford to go to college, it's not because they have bills to pay, or a family to feed? It's not because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and had to actually work to survive? This, again, is circular logic. The poor are poor because they are mentally lazy, but why are they mentally lazy? because they áren't educated? but why aren't they educated? because they're poor. Why would the wealthy not do it? Ethics,a sense of social resonsibility,a realization that they are where they are at least in part because of circumstance, belief that a united society can accomplish great things, take your pick.theone86

Providers are not all wealthy, that's a gross generalization. Even with the wealthy ones, does providing a certain amount of jobs make up for the damage they do to society? Does the pension money shareholders in BP got justify what was done in order to attain that profit? No. The wealthy in society take advantage in order to attain more wealth. Corporations force smaller employers out of business, keep superior products off the market for fear of competition, ship jobs overseas in the name of greater profit, ravage the environment for profit, manipulate politics for profit, fight wars for profit, do anything they have to for profit. That's not emotion, that's fact, and just because I have a sense of responsiblity about this oes not invalidate my argument. Why should certain people gorge themselves while others starve to death? Why should some have enourmous mansions while others live in the streets? Why should access to education and health care be upper cla$$ commodities? You can't even defend that using pure reason, you say it's because they deserve it in yet another display of circular logic. Emotion does not invalidate my argument, and its presence does not make my entire argument based simply on emotion.theone86

Large corporations force out small competition because consumers enable them to grow that big. If this magically doesn't make sense, watch "something wall-mart this way", the south park episode.

If you're going to form "moral" beliefs without understanding how things below it work, you're going to hold impractical, foolish views. In economics, you cannot grow without someone being willing to give up wealth. There's no way to. Even if you want to do it illegally, you'd need the power to do so. A poor person will never be able to do it. You'd need money to establish a reputation and trust. The economy is always the state between provider and consumer. Get that through your head. The implications are obvious.

Yeah, but what can you do. If you want a change, you're going to have to resort to violence.

Easy solution, get rich. Honestly I didn't finish reading your post because it didn't make sense. It's not like money determines your happiness.SeanDog123

I need to be rich. Noawz.

Easy solution, get rich. Honestly I didn't finish reading your post because it didn't make sense. It's not like money determines your happiness.SeanDog123

Easy solution? If it's so easy then why are there poor people who work their ass off and are not rich?

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]Easy solution, get rich. Honestly I didn't finish reading your post because it didn't make sense. It's not like money determines your happiness.UbiquitousAeon

Well, first off OP, saving banks from bankruptcy goes against free-market principles.

I don't mind people being rich. I want to be wealthy someday. It's their right to keep their money.

Well, first off OP, saving banks from bankruptcy goes against free-market principles.

airshocker

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]Easy solution, get rich. Honestly I didn't finish reading your post because it didn't make sense. It's not like money determines your happiness.SgtKevali

Easy solution? If it's so easy then why are there poor people who work their ass off and are not rich?

Easy--working hard in of itself never did anything for anyone. You work where the money is. Period. If money isn't there, working hard is just you using energy.

It's more of a simple solution than easy, although, the poor people can't figure it out anyways....

So? I'm against saving irresponsible economic entities and the free market environment that creates them.kuraimen

You're pretty misguided, then. Everything you have today is due to free-market principles.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]So? I'm against saving irresponsible economic entities and the free market environment that creates them.airshocker

You're pretty misguided, then. Everything you have today is due to free-market principles.

Eh, I highly doubt that but ok I think there are better ways for humanity than this. Maybe you're the misguided one? kuraimen

I'm not going off on rants screaming and crying about the rich. I value my freedom far too much to buy into any Robin Hood-esque ideals.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Eh, I highly doubt that but ok I think there are better ways for humanity than this. Maybe you're the misguided one? airshocker

I'm not going off on rants screaming and crying about the rich. I value my freedom far too much to buy into any Robin Hood-esque ideals.

Anytime you have a system designed around competition and merit based performance, you're going to have a subsegment of the population that will outperform others.

I'm not talking about Robin Hood-esque ideas I'm talking about not stepping on other people's freedoms which is the kind of thing a free market causes by economically enslaving entire nations and cultures.kuraimen

You must be living in a parallel reality, because my freedoms aren't being trampled on by corporations. They're being trampled on by politicians.

I don't want social security, yet I have to pay into it. I don't want my taxes being spent on unemployment benefits or emergency and other public services for illegals.

The corporations aren't doing ANY of that. Politicians are. I'm being enslaved by politicians who think it's our job to help everyone.

I'd rather stick with corporations who want nothing to do with my public life.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I'm not talking about Robin Hood-esque ideas I'm talking about not stepping on other people's freedoms which is the kind of thing a free market causes by economically enslaving entire nations and cultures.airshocker

You must be living in a parallel reality, because my freedoms aren't being trampled on by corporations. They're being trampled on by politicians.

I don't want social security, yet I have to pay into it. I don't want my taxes being spent on unemployment benefits or emergency and other public services for illegals.

The corporations aren't doing ANY of that. Politicians are. I'm being enslaved by politicians who think it's our job to help everyone.

I'd rather stick with corporations who want nothing to do with my public life.

Maybe your concern is of politicians because you live in the US and you feel it more from that angle. I don't trust politicians either but corporations do a lot of crap and damage specially in poor underdeveloped countries. The economical consequences don't stay in one country anymore it affects everything globally much more than whatever politician in a small third world nation could hope to ever achieve.kuraimen

You're right, my concern is more about politicians since I am from the US.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I'm not talking about Robin Hood-esque ideas I'm talking about not stepping on other people's freedoms which is the kind of thing a free market causes by economically enslaving entire nations and cultures.kuraimen

You must be living in a parallel reality, because my freedoms aren't being trampled on by corporations. They're being trampled on by politicians.

I don't want social security, yet I have to pay into it. I don't want my taxes being spent on unemployment benefits or emergency and other public services for illegals.

The corporations aren't doing ANY of that. Politicians are. I'm being enslaved by politicians who think it's our job to help everyone.

I'd rather stick with corporations who want nothing to do with my public life.

I personally think that politicians in third world countries tend to have a worse track record than corporations. But that's just me.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

You must be living in a parallel reality, because my freedoms aren't being trampled on by corporations. They're being trampled on by politicians.

I don't want social security, yet I have to pay into it. I don't want my taxes being spent on unemployment benefits or emergency and other public services for illegals.

The corporations aren't doing ANY of that. Politicians are. I'm being enslaved by politicians who think it's our job to help everyone.

I'd rather stick with corporations who want nothing to do with my public life.

coolbeans90

I personally think that politicians in third world countries tend to have a worse track record than corporations. But that's just me.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe your concern is of politicians because you live in the US and you feel it more from that angle. I don't trust politicians either but corporations do a lot of crap and damage specially in poor underdeveloped countries. The economical consequences don't stay in one country anymore it affects everything globally much more than whatever politician in a small third world nation could hope to ever achieve.kuraimen

I personally think that politicians in third world countries tend to have a worse track record than corporations. But that's just me.

I think that with corporations in thrid world countries don't make the place worse off, even if not helping them much. Oppressive leaders in third world countries on the other hand, cause civil wars, mass starvations etc. Granted if the corporations work with the gov't, then there are serious problems...

people are lazy andneed to stop blaming everyone else.

blaming capitalism shows ignorance because we don't and haven't had capitalism for a long time.

capitalism doesn't involve counterfeit money or a gov. managed market.

capitalism doesn't involve counterfeit money or a gov. managed market.

xromad01

Look up Keynesian economics, a formula which has been (and continues to be) popular since WW2.