Why does the power of wealth always trump doing what makes sense?

rgambs

BS44325 said:

Who is John Galt?

A mythical hero for those who need to justify their selfish desires with 300 pages of the same words over and over and over again.

hedonist

hedonist said:

mickeyrat said:

money/wealth is as much a drug as anything else addictive. Theres never enough. Always "need" more.

Right, but not everyone is an addict.

Some do have enough, or feel they have enough, or splurge once in awhile.

I just don't see it as a never/always thing...not across the board.

By the way, mickey - I had to come back and comment on this because I believe most of us have vices (or let semantics dictate the term)...in retrospect my post felt hypocritical and want to clarify it's meant more to address whether that (again, insert term) is detrimental, unhealthy, hurtful.

hedonist

backseatLover12 said:

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

See Eddie Vedder.

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/eddie-vedder
http://www.thedailyepic.com/eddie-vedder-releases-a-cover-of-imagine-to-raise-money-for-charity/
http://news.microsoft.com/features/eddie-vedder-performs-live-at-microsoft-to-raise-money-for-eb-a-rare-genetic-skin-disorder/

See Pearl Jam
http://pearljam.com/activism/vitalogy-foundation

Yes again! As mentioned earlier, this band collectively and individually have done some fine work. Thanks!

hedonist

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Then, is it about perception (the side-by-side thing) or reality, and what each do? It's not just about the dollar, but also effort and energy and goodwill.

Same as I'd rather not have another determining the (my) necessary threshold of giving, of donating - I too can't do that to another.

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

To answer your question, I don't think there is a clear threshold. I can only answer what would be a necessary amount in order to consider myself not selfish or heartless. On well less than 100,000/year we give a few hundred to a 1,000$ away in money and 20-30 hrs in service in the year and sometimes I feel like I'm doing ok, but most of the time I feel like a wealthy, lazy schmuck who lives too fat and too sassy.
We are young and idealistic and we dream of giving up our standardized lives to live on adventure and service in equal measures... Jean-Claude has pretty much ended that dream for awhile lol
I honestly don't think I could consider myself a truly compassionate conscious person with any more than 1-2 million in total worth.

Well, I know you - a person whom I respect and consider a friend.

That separated and for what it's worth, I think character is (by my standards) measured by actions (shared/known or not), words, conduct, overall integrity - which has nothing to do with account balance.

I wish I could find a better way to express myself here. I guess, were I to receive a financial windfall no matter the means, my actions - sense of wanting to help, give - wouldn't be diminished.

I agree with this, but I feel it breaks down at a certain level of wealth. If I have a billion dollars in my account I can have a greater effect on the unfortunate with the stroke of a pen than by devoting my hands and words to help them for all my days. The personal touch is needed as well of course.

We're pretty close here, gambs...I'd say that it's up to no one but me to dictate an acceptable amount to have or give (assuming it's been legitimately earned).

badbrains

backseatLover12 said:

badbrains said:

"Stop the madness"-

Ha ha! Susan Powter!

Oh wait, that was "Stop the insanity!"

Kevin O'leary-Shark Tank

rgambs

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Then, is it about perception (the side-by-side thing) or reality, and what each do? It's not just about the dollar, but also effort and energy and goodwill.

Same as I'd rather not have another determining the (my) necessary threshold of giving, of donating - I too can't do that to another.

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

To answer your question, I don't think there is a clear threshold. I can only answer what would be a necessary amount in order to consider myself not selfish or heartless. On well less than 100,000/year we give a few hundred to a 1,000$ away in money and 20-30 hrs in service in the year and sometimes I feel like I'm doing ok, but most of the time I feel like a wealthy, lazy schmuck who lives too fat and too sassy.
We are young and idealistic and we dream of giving up our standardized lives to live on adventure and service in equal measures... Jean-Claude has pretty much ended that dream for awhile lol
I honestly don't think I could consider myself a truly compassionate conscious person with any more than 1-2 million in total worth.

Well, I know you - a person whom I respect and consider a friend.

That separated and for what it's worth, I think character is (by my standards) measured by actions (shared/known or not), words, conduct, overall integrity - which has nothing to do with account balance.

I wish I could find a better way to express myself here. I guess, were I to receive a financial windfall no matter the means, my actions - sense of wanting to help, give - wouldn't be diminished.

I agree with this, but I feel it breaks down at a certain level of wealth. If I have a billion dollars in my account I can have a greater effect on the unfortunate with the stroke of a pen than by devoting my hands and words to help them for all my days. The personal touch is needed as well of course.

We're pretty close here, gambs...I'd say that it's up to no one but me to dictate an acceptable amount to have or give (assuming it's been legitimately earned).

Yeah I don't really believe in legislating morality that's for sure.

brianlux

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Then, is it about perception (the side-by-side thing) or reality, and what each do? It's not just about the dollar, but also effort and energy and goodwill.

Same as I'd rather not have another determining the (my) necessary threshold of giving, of donating - I too can't do that to another.

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

To answer your question, I don't think there is a clear threshold. I can only answer what would be a necessary amount in order to consider myself not selfish or heartless. On well less than 100,000/year we give a few hundred to a 1,000$ away in money and 20-30 hrs in service in the year and sometimes I feel like I'm doing ok, but most of the time I feel like a wealthy, lazy schmuck who lives too fat and too sassy.
We are young and idealistic and we dream of giving up our standardized lives to live on adventure and service in equal measures... Jean-Claude has pretty much ended that dream for awhile lol
I honestly don't think I could consider myself a truly compassionate conscious person with any more than 1-2 million in total worth.

Well, I know you - a person whom I respect and consider a friend.

That separated and for what it's worth, I think character is (by my standards) measured by actions (shared/known or not), words, conduct, overall integrity - which has nothing to do with account balance.

I wish I could find a better way to express myself here. I guess, were I to receive a financial windfall no matter the means, my actions - sense of wanting to help, give - wouldn't be diminished.

I agree with this, but I feel it breaks down at a certain level of wealth. If I have a billion dollars in my account I can have a greater effect on the unfortunate with the stroke of a pen than by devoting my hands and words to help them for all my days. The personal touch is needed as well of course.

We're pretty close here, gambs...I'd say that it's up to no one but me to dictate an acceptable amount to have or give (assuming it's been legitimately earned).

Yeah I don't really believe in legislating morality that's for sure.

Yes, for sure.

In fact, some of the best things people have done have been in total anonymity.

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Money will never be the solution to ending world poverty. Bono knows this. As much of an egomaniac as he seems to be, he doesn't meet with foreign dignitaris for show, he does it to try to change global public policy to help get rid of the real problem: power hungry dictators and war lords. if money would solve it, i guarantee you he (and many others) would write the cheque. All those Aid concerts have less to do with money and more to do with raising global awareness to the cause.

But the problem is, most government heads know what no one wants to admit: if their electorate were given the choice between a) higher taxes to help a foreign country rid itself of political disease with no economic gain for their own country or b) the status quo, the choice would be overwhelmingly "b". Sorry if that sounds cynical, but I believe it to be true.

HughFreakingDillon

And something else bothers me when asked to solve this problem, many of us default to "all the rich assholes should fix it, they don't need all those millions". You are probably right, they dont. But to someone in africa living on $0.30 a day, what even I make is an incomprehensible amount of money. Do i need the flat screen tv? The ipad that i am typing this on now? The weekend away in a nice hotel to see pearl jam again? If i am not willing to give up those minor luxuries, why should a millionaire give up theirs? It is all relative.

HughFreakingDillon

And to answer your original question, brian, of why dont these rich people take care of the planet, etc, i think a certain amount of money and/or power can be incredibly corrupting to the point tgat you can justify your actions with things like "well i bought an electric car" or "i give x amount of dollars to x charity" or "i offset my carbon footprint by buying credits" or to even "i am single handedly driving the economy, creating jobs for x amount of people, putting food on the table for x amount of children". And to an extent, it is actually true. If there was no wealth, even extreme wealth, we wouldnt having a thriving capitalist society. The gap is widening, for sure, but how do you stop that from happening? It seems like a logical evolution of a capitalist society until it eventually collapses on itself, no?

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

And to answer your original question, brian, of why dont these rich people take care of the planet, etc, i think a certain amount of money and/or power can be incredibly corrupting to the point tgat you can justify your actions with things like "well i bought an electric car" or "i give x amount of dollars to x charity" or "i offset my carbon footprint by buying credits" or to even "i am single handedly driving the economy, creating jobs for x amount of people, putting food on the table for x amount of children". And to an extent, it is actually true. If there was no wealth, even extreme wealth, we wouldnt having a thriving capitalist society. The gap is widening, for sure, but how do you stop that from happening? It seems like a logical evolution of a capitalist society until it eventually collapses on itself, no?

There are some (I'm thinking of Derrick Jensen, right off the top of my head) who have stated that this is exactly what will and must happen- that the collapse of civilization as we know it will force what's left of us back (eventually) to a more stable societal situation and prevent further collapse of ecosystems. And these people believe the sooner this happens the better. From what I've read (Jensen's almost 900 page Endgame, for example) these arguments make logical sense. Maybe so, but who wants to be in the middle of that kind of chaos (not that we would have a choice)? I don't know what the answer is.

Interesting what you said about Bono. Some of the interviews I watched of him speaking outside of the realm of music are quite compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and compassionate.

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

And to answer your original question, brian, of why dont these rich people take care of the planet, etc, i think a certain amount of money and/or power can be incredibly corrupting to the point tgat you can justify your actions with things like "well i bought an electric car" or "i give x amount of dollars to x charity" or "i offset my carbon footprint by buying credits" or to even "i am single handedly driving the economy, creating jobs for x amount of people, putting food on the table for x amount of children". And to an extent, it is actually true. If there was no wealth, even extreme wealth, we wouldnt having a thriving capitalist society. The gap is widening, for sure, but how do you stop that from happening? It seems like a logical evolution of a capitalist society until it eventually collapses on itself, no?

There are some (I'm thinking of Derrick Jensen, right off the top of my head) who have stated that this is exactly what will and must happen- that the collapse of civilization as we know it will force what's left of us back (eventually) to a more stable societal situation and prevent further collapse of ecosystems. And these people believe the sooner this happens the better. From what I've read (Jensen's almost 900 page Endgame, for example) these arguments make logical sense. Maybe so, but who wants to be in the middle of that kind of chaos (not that we would have a choice)? I don't know what the answer is.

Interesting what you said about Bono. Some of the interviews I watched of him speaking outside of the realm of music are quite compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and compassionate.

you're right, I don't think anyone wants to be in the middle of an economic apocalypse, but at this point, I think it's a foregone conclusion.

the only scenario I can see our species surviving AND the Earth surviving, is a world with no governments, no currency, no major resources to exploit. but then you get back into the realm of no law, no human rights, etc. basically, back to being hunters and gatherers.

yeah, there was a time where every time I'd see Bono sitting with a government head, I'd think "oh jeez, there he goes again, trying to save the world....shut up and sing, Bono!". But then I came to believe that he honestly believes in what he is doing.

rr165892

HughFreakingDillon said:

And something else bothers me when asked to solve this problem, many of us default to "all the rich assholes should fix it, they don't need all those millions". You are probably right, they dont. But to someone in africa living on $0.30 a day, what even I make is an incomprehensible amount of money. Do i need the flat screen tv? The ipad that i am typing this on now? The weekend away in a nice hotel to see pearl jam again? If i am not willing to give up those minor luxuries, why should a millionaire give up theirs? It is all relative.

Your last sentence makes a lot of sense.

rr165892

Idk,I think it's a slippery slope to start governing what is too much wealth,and what should or could be done with said wealth.
I felt this same way during those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.So you go after the big money,who gets hurt? The ones at low end of that totem pole.

The notion that everyone should be equal is a pipe dream.Some people work harder and make better life choices then others.They should be punished and ridiculed for the same success most wish to achieve?Very Hypocritical.

What should be equal is the oppurtunity to succeed.What we do with it,is what separates us as a society.Sure there are those born lucky with a silver spoon and other who are born never to see life outside of squalor,but all in all starting from the same place I would want all to reach for the stars.

Gambs,who's to say the CEOof Rockwell isn't a fucking straight up great guy.Benevlent to the hilt.Founding hospitals,and charitable orginazations,donating time and money.To pass judgement without knowing him or her as individual is careless and equally as bad as saying everyone who is poor is a loser.

riotgrl

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

And to answer your original question, brian, of why dont these rich people take care of the planet, etc, i think a certain amount of money and/or power can be incredibly corrupting to the point tgat you can justify your actions with things like "well i bought an electric car" or "i give x amount of dollars to x charity" or "i offset my carbon footprint by buying credits" or to even "i am single handedly driving the economy, creating jobs for x amount of people, putting food on the table for x amount of children". And to an extent, it is actually true. If there was no wealth, even extreme wealth, we wouldnt having a thriving capitalist society. The gap is widening, for sure, but how do you stop that from happening? It seems like a logical evolution of a capitalist society until it eventually collapses on itself, no?

There are some (I'm thinking of Derrick Jensen, right off the top of my head) who have stated that this is exactly what will and must happen- that the collapse of civilization as we know it will force what's left of us back (eventually) to a more stable societal situation and prevent further collapse of ecosystems. And these people believe the sooner this happens the better. From what I've read (Jensen's almost 900 page Endgame, for example) these arguments make logical sense. Maybe so, but who wants to be in the middle of that kind of chaos (not that we would have a choice)? I don't know what the answer is.

Interesting what you said about Bono. Some of the interviews I watched of him speaking outside of the realm of music are quite compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and compassionate.

you're right, I don't think anyone wants to be in the middle of an economic apocalypse, but at this point, I think it's a foregone conclusion.

the only scenario I can see our species surviving AND the Earth surviving, is a world with no governments, no currency, no major resources to exploit. but then you get back into the realm of no law, no human rights, etc. basically, back to being hunters and gatherers.

yeah, there was a time where every time I'd see Bono sitting with a government head, I'd think "oh jeez, there he goes again, trying to save the world....shut up and sing, Bono!". But then I came to believe that he honestly believes in what he is doing.

I'm sure brian can speak to this better than I can as he mentioned a book by Manning previously in this thread that builds on the premise that hunter gatherers were not the lawless, backwards society that we think they were. What if these societies were actually more egalitarian than anything we could accomplish in today's world? A major collapse of the world economy would create a very frightening situation but would the endgame really be that horrific? I'm not sure but I think we may find out at some point :(

HughFreakingDillon

rr165892 said:

Idk,I think it's a slippery slope to start governing what is too much wealth,and what should or could be done with said wealth.
I felt this same way during those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.So you go after the big money,who gets hurt? The ones at low end of that totem pole.

The notion that everyone should be equal is a pipe dream.Some people work harder and make better life choices then others.They should be punished and ridiculed for the same success most wish to achieve?Very Hypocritical.

What should be equal is the oppurtunity to succeed.What we do with it,is what separates us as a society.Sure there are those born lucky with a silver spoon and other who are born never to see life outside of squalor,but all in all starting from the same place I would want all to reach for the stars.

Gambs,who's to say the CEOof Rockwell isn't a fucking straight up great guy.Benevlent to the hilt.Founding hospitals,and charitable orginazations,donating time and money.To pass judgement without knowing him or her as individual is careless and equally as bad as saying everyone who is poor is a loser.

as to the part I bolded, I completely disagree. this goes back to how a good friend of mine who is a dentist, owns his own practice, has loads of money, and had his entire schooling paid by his parents while he lived at home rent free, thinks that he shouldn't have to tip a server because "he/she made worse life choices than I did".

working harder and making better choices very rarely equals more money. it's part of it, but you can't tell me that a CEO of a major corporation works harder or made better choices than the single mother who was abandoned by her asshole husband with 4 kids and 3 jobs. she works hard as fuck. he probably grew up in priveledge, or something close to it, to begin with.

it has more to do with how you started out. most people do not change their social class from birth to death.

HughFreakingDillon

riotgrl said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

And to answer your original question, brian, of why dont these rich people take care of the planet, etc, i think a certain amount of money and/or power can be incredibly corrupting to the point tgat you can justify your actions with things like "well i bought an electric car" or "i give x amount of dollars to x charity" or "i offset my carbon footprint by buying credits" or to even "i am single handedly driving the economy, creating jobs for x amount of people, putting food on the table for x amount of children". And to an extent, it is actually true. If there was no wealth, even extreme wealth, we wouldnt having a thriving capitalist society. The gap is widening, for sure, but how do you stop that from happening? It seems like a logical evolution of a capitalist society until it eventually collapses on itself, no?

There are some (I'm thinking of Derrick Jensen, right off the top of my head) who have stated that this is exactly what will and must happen- that the collapse of civilization as we know it will force what's left of us back (eventually) to a more stable societal situation and prevent further collapse of ecosystems. And these people believe the sooner this happens the better. From what I've read (Jensen's almost 900 page Endgame, for example) these arguments make logical sense. Maybe so, but who wants to be in the middle of that kind of chaos (not that we would have a choice)? I don't know what the answer is.

Interesting what you said about Bono. Some of the interviews I watched of him speaking outside of the realm of music are quite compelling. He seems very knowledgeable and compassionate.

you're right, I don't think anyone wants to be in the middle of an economic apocalypse, but at this point, I think it's a foregone conclusion.

the only scenario I can see our species surviving AND the Earth surviving, is a world with no governments, no currency, no major resources to exploit. but then you get back into the realm of no law, no human rights, etc. basically, back to being hunters and gatherers.

yeah, there was a time where every time I'd see Bono sitting with a government head, I'd think "oh jeez, there he goes again, trying to save the world....shut up and sing, Bono!". But then I came to believe that he honestly believes in what he is doing.

I'm sure brian can speak to this better than I can as he mentioned a book by Manning previously in this thread that builds on the premise that hunter gatherers were not the lawless, backwards society that we think they were. What if these societies were actually more egalitarian than anything we could accomplish in today's world? A major collapse of the world economy would create a very frightening situation but would the endgame really be that horrific? I'm not sure but I think we may find out at some point :(

I had to look up the meaning of egalitarian! lol.

I don't think the hunter gatherers were backwards, but when I say lawless, I mean just that, they didn't have a structured legal system. if someone was murdered, there was no trial and punishment, etc. there might be a revenge murder, or something of the like. that's all I meant. every person/tribe for themselves.

I think the endgame would be horrific until the weak were weeded out. I just may be one of those, to be honest. I don't have a fucking clue how to build shelter, grow my own food, etc. And I'm probably in the majority. I'd be fucked even if I was on Survivor, to be honest.

Although, I'd probably lose a lot of weight rather quickly. Silver linings.

rgambs

rr165892 said:

Idk,I think it's a slippery slope to start governing what is too much wealth,and what should or could be done with said wealth.
I felt this same way during those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.So you go after the big money,who gets hurt? The ones at low end of that totem pole.

The notion that everyone should be equal is a pipe dream.Some people work harder and make better life choices then others.They should be punished and ridiculed for the same success most wish to achieve?Very Hypocritical.

What should be equal is the oppurtunity to succeed.What we do with it,is what separates us as a society.Sure there are those born lucky with a silver spoon and other who are born never to see life outside of squalor,but all in all starting from the same place I would want all to reach for the stars.

Gambs,who's to say the CEOof Rockwell isn't a fucking straight up great guy.Benevlent to the hilt.Founding hospitals,and charitable orginazations,donating time and money.To pass judgement without knowing him or her as individual is careless and equally as bad as saying everyone who is poor is a loser.

I think it's an equally, if not more, slippery slope to say a person can accumulate an unlimited amount of resources and pass them on from generation to generation while tens of thousands of people starve before they ever get a chance to even make "better life choices".

hedonist

HughFreakingDillon said:

rr165892 said:

Idk,I think it's a slippery slope to start governing what is too much wealth,and what should or could be done with said wealth.
I felt this same way during those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.So you go after the big money,who gets hurt? The ones at low end of that totem pole.

The notion that everyone should be equal is a pipe dream.Some people work harder and make better life choices then others.They should be punished and ridiculed for the same success most wish to achieve?Very Hypocritical.

What should be equal is the oppurtunity to succeed.What we do with it,is what separates us as a society.Sure there are those born lucky with a silver spoon and other who are born never to see life outside of squalor,but all in all starting from the same place I would want all to reach for the stars.

Gambs,who's to say the CEOof Rockwell isn't a fucking straight up great guy.Benevlent to the hilt.Founding hospitals,and charitable orginazations,donating time and money.To pass judgement without knowing him or her as individual is careless and equally as bad as saying everyone who is poor is a loser.

as to the part I bolded, I completely disagree. this goes back to how a good friend of mine who is a dentist, owns his own practice, has loads of money, and had his entire schooling paid by his parents while he lived at home rent free, thinks that he shouldn't have to tip a server because "he/she made worse life choices than I did".

working harder and making better choices very rarely equals more money. it's part of it, but you can't tell me that a CEO of a major corporation works harder or made better choices than the single mother who was abandoned by her asshole husband with 4 kids and 3 jobs. she works hard as fuck. he probably grew up in priveledge, or something close to it, to begin with.

it has more to do with how you started out. most people do not change their social class from birth to death.

But that dentist is a jerk - well, acts like one anyway. But for every one of him, I think there are many more who treat others decently because it's the right thing to do, regardless of success or wealth.

Also, I've found the ones who've worked their way up - or are in the process of doing so - tend to be more empathetic and generous.

rr165892

HughFreakingDillon said:

rr165892 said:

Idk,I think it's a slippery slope to start governing what is too much wealth,and what should or could be done with said wealth.
I felt this same way during those ridiculous Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.So you go after the big money,who gets hurt? The ones at low end of that totem pole.

The notion that everyone should be equal is a pipe dream.Some people work harder and make better life choices then others.They should be punished and ridiculed for the same success most wish to achieve?Very Hypocritical.

What should be equal is the oppurtunity to succeed.What we do with it,is what separates us as a society.Sure there are those born lucky with a silver spoon and other who are born never to see life outside of squalor,but all in all starting from the same place I would want all to reach for the stars.

Gambs,who's to say the CEOof Rockwell isn't a fucking straight up great guy.Benevlent to the hilt.Founding hospitals,and charitable orginazations,donating time and money.To pass judgement without knowing him or her as individual is careless and equally as bad as saying everyone who is poor is a loser.

as to the part I bolded, I completely disagree. this goes back to how a good friend of mine who is a dentist, owns his own practice, has loads of money, and had his entire schooling paid by his parents while he lived at home rent free, thinks that he shouldn't have to tip a server because "he/she made worse life choices than I did".

working harder and making better choices very rarely equals more money. it's part of it, but you can't tell me that a CEO of a major corporation works harder or made better choices than the single mother who was abandoned by her asshole husband with 4 kids and 3 jobs. she works hard as fuck. he probably grew up in priveledge, or something close to it, to begin with.

it has more to do with how you started out. most people do not change their social class from birth to death.

See,that has nothing to do with social class and everything to do with your dentist(yes im a anti dentite) buddy being clueless and kinda a dick.Maybe a bit of a snob as well.i bet he's a tightly whitey kinda guy,lol

What descisions did that single mother make.Did she get preggers early?Did she drop out of school?Did she have a drug problem?Does she choose to be with abusive dirtbag men?Many variables for sure.
Her hard work ethic could positively effect her children's view of hard work and allow them to move forward.Not be stuck in the same trapped dead end life.

The CEO,how do we know he/she didn't work 3 jobs to put themselves thru school and work their way up from the mailroom.Maybe the person chose to be career minded instead of seeking a long term relationship early in the ladder climb allowing for more single minded dedication to the job.Maybe they were raised by a single mother working 3 jobs who taught them how to be dedicated to their proffesion.

I think it's easy to paint those who live differently then us with a wide brush.When in reality we know nothing about them.We have to judge each person on there individual merits and not on how many zeros are on their bank account.Rich can be giving and caring and poor can be bright and hard working.It all works.You can't cherry pick.

Paul, you are making presumptions above.
.Most the very successful buisness people I've known have been very driven,bright people.Some are immigrants who's families came here with nothing,others are self made,but they all have the same quality in common.They weren't affraid to fail,they worked hard and made some good fortunate descisions.These are qualities that can be learned by anyone.and you don't have to be born into money to find success.