- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,019
- 2,290
The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.
The Unwealthy didn't.
Ironically, ants are communists....
Just Sayin'
That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.
The Unwealthy didn't.
Ironically, ants are communists....
Just Sayin'
The Wealthy learned something from the old "The Grasshopper and the Ant" tale.
The Unwealthy didn't.
Ironically, ants are communists....
Just Sayin'
That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.
Wow. Such intelectual lazyiness and plagerism. You just post other people opinions and ask me to reply to them. I will not accept a link as an answer and I will not entertain someone so lazy that they cant defend their own positions. What kind of crap is this? Say what you will about rand. I just cited her definition of morality to back up my other comparison of that same definition located in the declaration of independence. They both say the same thing. Yet you fail to understand it huh?
Someone here is talking about communism and it's you, tovarich.A few replies to replies.
The ad homs and name calling always show the empty heads and partisan wackos, occasionally a reply helps me clarify my own arguments so all is good.
Oddball, no one is talking about communism except you. You seriously need to consider pavlovian remediation treatment. Good luck.
Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless. No one creates wealth outside of society. It would have no meaning as who would accept it as being real thing.
Actually an argument can be made that charitable work consists of taxes as we willingly pay them to support the various aspects of society we deem important. Welfare for all can then be both personal charity and a positive use of taxes. This is an argument Jeremy Waldron makes.
Rights are always an interesting concept, I say every human being (and even animal) possesses certain rights simply because they exist as conscious beings. If welfare supports and helps a child, a family, or a person then their rights as conscious beings are being acknowledged. Welfare is not wealth by the way. No Cadillac mom ever existed.
You obviously know few wealthy people, most are born or marry into it. Some inherit it, a few have skills that supply it. They do nothing that another could not do given a similar set of circumstances. Let me link this again. " The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax " And again without the technology, support systems, infrastructure and the demand and volume sales of a society, wealth would not exist. So the Serf analogy holds.
Incentives? Why do you guys like words like demonize? Helps hide the argument behind non-answer replies? Carlin said it best, "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
Quantum Windbag, You've never read your posts?
For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context, building a hundred shelters would equate to a hundred shelters. Where is the wealth without people? Imagine a native who has lived alone and upon meeting QW is told of his great wealth. LOL See above reply to Wiseacre too.
Mother Theresa used society's wealth to help others, good for her, at least in this instance. Bill Gates crushed more companies than most corporations do and the moral implications only became a consideration after he had so much, he felt secure enough to use some for a good purpose. Buffett has a conscience, may always have had one. My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences. While Gates and Microsoft demonstrate the lack of morals, I realize the point is complex.
We all see what we want to see but a few consider whether the view makes sense. We see things through the mirror which is each of us.
If you know anyone who runs a business that often deals in cash ask them that question, oh, and discuss the morality too if you'd like to lose friends. Curiously today we even pay for Bernie Madoff's care so you have your answer.
You don't know that I am not wealthy and consider that as a liberal I may consider other things more important. I don't brag online. But I do hobnob with lots of rich people because ..... they do not create jobs - at least in the sense in which the argument is made.
No one creates in a vacuum. If the book sells take a guess who buys it and how the author makes millions? From where? If a man writes the great American novel on an island, and no one is there, is it read. Educators deserve more pay, education should be free for most education. I've stated this often, I married an educator.
You have a thought, oh sorry, now I'm stooping to your level. Actually you are giving your thoughts right here for free, and they are all too common among conservatives and libertarians types. Tiring actually. Rand and Friedman dominate your responses. Corporate propaganda has rendered you all brain dead, I say that in the nicest way.
PS I'll need to see if other comments clarify or obfuscate.
Because words mean things. Sure, it's ok if you talk to yourself (though it's unhealthy if you get mad at yourself when you lose arguments and start hitting). We have to agree on a definition if we're talking together so what say we use one from Collins English Dictionary:Wealth is not a concept. Why does a man need social/economic context to have meaning? ...For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context...
Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless...
Wealth is not created or enforced by society, it works the other way around...
--and it only matters because we are moral, so now let's list our shared values --America's core values found on our money:Wealth is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. What you do with it is what matters...My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences...
Ironically, ants are communists....
Just Sayin'
That's not Ironic; it's LOGICAL.
Nonetheless, Aesop would approve.
A few replies to replies.
The ad homs and name calling always show the empty heads and partisan wackos, occasionally a reply helps me clarify my own arguments so all is good.
Oddball, no one is talking about communism except you. You seriously need to consider pavlovian remediation treatment. Good luck.
RadiomanATL, Please don't get lost in the Amazon, the wingnuts will miss your participation in the wingnut circle jerk. I've heard you're pivot man, and your loss would surely confuse the other circle jerks.
Foxfyre, 3) Something else - answer is already in OP and I'll elucidate more later.
Wiseacre, everyone pays taxes unless they live on air and in a rent free cave. Everything you purchase is taxed, including your travel. Home foreclosure is a great example of poor social organization, faulty regulation, and greed, from all parties involved.
Wealth apart from society and the structures to create and enforce it is meaningless. No one creates wealth outside of society. It would have no meaning as who would accept it as being real thing.
Actually an argument can be made that charitable work consists of taxes as we willingly pay them to support the various aspects of society we deem important. Welfare for all can then be both personal charity and a positive use of taxes. This is an argument Jeremy Waldron makes.
Rights are always an interesting concept, I say every human being (and even animal) possesses certain rights simply because they exist as conscious beings. If welfare supports and helps a child, a family, or a person then their rights as conscious beings are being acknowledged. Welfare is not wealth by the way. No Cadillac mom ever existed.
You obviously know few wealthy people, most are born or marry into it. Some inherit it, a few have skills that supply it. They do nothing that another could not do given a similar set of circumstances. Let me link this again. " The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax " And again without the technology, support systems, infrastructure and the demand and volume sales of a society, wealth would not exist. So the Serf analogy holds.
Incentives? Why do you guys like words like demonize? Helps hide the argument behind non-answer replies? Carlin said it best, "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
Quantum Windbag, You've never read your posts?
For a marooned person the concept of wealth would be meaningless. A thing only gains meaning in a social/economic context, building a hundred shelters would equate to a hundred shelters. Where is the wealth without people? Imagine a native who has lived alone and upon meeting QW is told of his great wealth. LOL See above reply to Wiseacre too.
Mother Theresa used society's wealth to help others, good for her, at least in this instance. Bill Gates crushed more companies than most corporations do and the moral implications only became a consideration after he had so much, he felt secure enough to use some for a good purpose. Buffett has a conscience, may always have had one. My point about the gathering of wealth is that the ultimate implications of this act consider only profit and not moral consequences. While Gates and Microsoft demonstrate the lack of morals, I realize the point is complex.
We all see what we want to see but a few consider whether the view makes sense. We see things through the mirror which is each of us.
If you know anyone who runs a business that often deals in cash ask them that question, oh, and discuss the morality too if you'd like to lose friends. Curiously today we even pay for Bernie Madoff's care so you have your answer.
You don't know that I am not wealthy and consider that as a liberal I may consider other things more important. I don't brag online. But I do hobnob with lots of rich people because ..... they do not create jobs - at least in the sense in which the argument is made.
I'll make sure the parachute is packed correctly.
No one creates in a vacuum. If the book sells take a guess who buys it and how the author makes millions? From where? If a man writes the great American novel on an island, and no one is there, is it read. Educators deserve more pay, education should be free for most education. I've stated this often, I married an educator.
You have a thought, oh sorry, now I'm stooping to your level. Actually you are giving your thoughts right here for free, and they are all too common among conservatives and libertarians types. Tiring actually. Rand and Friedman dominate your responses. Corporate propaganda has rendered you all brain dead, I say that in the nicest way.
PS I'll need to see if other comments clarify or obfuscate.
Thanks. Sounds nice with the echo we got in here too... ...in here too... ...in here too... ... .. .... ... ...Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put...
It appears that you "only" want to focus on the wealthy, after their wealth is substantial. You do not mention personal sacrifice: when those that are not wealthy were running the streets and clubs, working a job to give them enough money to party, those "wealthy" people were working low-paying jobs that would walk them into a future or going to school, and going easy on the party scene. When the decision to marry came along, it was not who will 'give me _______', it was I am willing to sacrifice my personal happiness to make this person that I chose, happy. When children came, it was not: I want to be my child's BFF, it was, what do I need to do, to make this life, this gift, into a great person. When the children were older it was not: let me buy toys for me (so I can share them with the children), it was, let me save and plan for my future so my children will not be burdened with a 'dead-end' parent at a time they will need their resources for their own families.
After years of sacrifice (and yes, most people that do this are extremely satisfied with their lives, because their lives are not selfish and superficial), the person/couple is wealthy. The one(s) that 'blew' their resources and wealth to live above 'their income', now demand that the wealth is distributed equally. It was, they, that made bad investments, while others made good investments. At any time in most peoples' lives they can choose to do the right thing, many, don't ever choose to do the right thing and are unwilling to reap what they have sown. There is no shortcut. The only way to happiness (and wealth) is by steadily working towards your goals. Most of those that are 'gifted' wealth (inheritance/winnings), that had no money, previously, will soon 'waste' the 'gift'. Like their lives, their resources are focused on things with little or no return value. It is something that cannot be legislated or changed by anyone but the individual.
The basic thrust of this thread seems to be that wealthy people are immoral because they attained wealth by illegal or exploitive means. Or by luck, in some fashion winning the lottery or inheriting wealth and vast estates. All of which may be true to some extent, there are boatloads of people in every walk of life and income level who have gotten where they are without really earning it. I don't think it's fair to focus on just the ones who made it up to millionaire status, ANYBODY who uses unfair practices to advance their own situation deserves censure. And prosecution....
....Are you saying unconscious people have no rights? If so, I am pretty sure most people would disagree with you about that one.
Midcan't refuses to recognize that his "society" strawman wouldn't exist in the absence of consenting adults, freely exchanging perceived value for perceived value.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.
We need to stick to a common definition and most people say wealth is having a lot of money or valuable goods. If you want percentages in there then admit you've got your own private definition there and we'll be happy to concede you the point. We also need to stick to what's actually happening on the planet Earth. Today's Americans are more wealthy than those of a generation ago, the older usually have more wealth than they did when they were young, and America's poor are more wealthy than most people in the the rest of the world....wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility...
Orthodox ideology aside, hard current numbers show far more wealth is being created than has been inherited and we're far more wealthy now than before Reagan:...our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people....
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.
We need to stick to a common definition and most people say wealth is having a lot of money or valuable goods. If you want percentages in there then admit you've got your own private definition there and we'll be happy to concede you the point. We also need to stick to what's actually happening on the planet Earth. Today's Americans are more wealthy than those of a generation ago, the older usually have more wealth than they did when they were young, and America's poor are more wealthy than most people in the the rest of the world....wealth is the top 2 or 3% even 5% but few reach that plateau and most who are in this category started in the upper middle classes and usually inherited the means to wealth. Class statistics confirm the lack of mobility...
Orthodox ideology aside, hard current numbers show far more wealth is being created than has been inherited and we're far more wealthy now than before Reagan:...our best years (for most but not all) in America were after WWII till Reagan and others started the destruction of worker rights, and corporations put profit ahead of people....
Wow. Such intelectual lazyiness and plagerism. You just post other people opinions and ask me to reply to them. I will not accept a link as an answer and I will not entertain someone so lazy that they cant defend their own positions. What kind of crap is this? Say what you will about rand. I just cited her definition of morality to back up my other comparison of that same definition located in the declaration of independence. They both say the same thing. Yet you fail to understand it huh?
You can't be serious, you post Youtubes on morality that say nothing and your replies are the stuff of an Ayn Rand robot. Plagiarism? Where?
A video from TED or Edge is a hell of lot more intelligent than the Galt silliness you presented as an answer. Haidt's piece answers your question but I'll stick with morality as comfortable for most people. Only later does the moral enter the picture. The Armstrong piece on 60 Minutes tonight demonstrated that as fact again.
And I posted links to several of my own pieces. Give an argument that counters the points not Ayn Rand talking points from her crap propaganda pretending to be literature. I think this stuff is over most people's heads here, the replies are the usual excuses for the status quo. I'll look for a real counter, but no time tonight. You need to learn a bit before coming back with another Atlas shrugging.
--was just thinking that myself. Here it is adjusted for inflation and population too:...like to see that chart adjusted for inflation.
--was just thinking that myself. Here it is adjusted for inflation and population too:...like to see that chart adjusted for inflation.
--easier to see how most wealth is created and not inherited. Also shows how wealth creation hit a snag with the 'War on Poverty' and then resumed with 'Morning in America'.