Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective
posted by Unknown at 5:34 PM
"Old Man" by Neil Young rolled through my head reading that. "I've been first and last, look at how the time goes passed....." Along with what Rush said, and as we all know, there will always be those with less than any of us have as well. Sometimes it's all what between the ears. I don't see how you can "legislate" equality in that sense.JP Getty said you can take all the money in the world and spread it around evenly, and the ones who have it now will have it back again, or similar to that. I believe it. Money just burns a hole in some people's pockets.
@br549 said... JP Getty said you can take all the money in the world and spread it around evenly, and the ones who have it now will have it back again, or similar to that. I believe it. Money just burns a hole in some people's pockets.________I agree. Most financial problems have more to do with behavior than income. Of course, one needs income, but one can also always spend more than they make. There are people making $50,000 a year who will retire very wealthy, and there are people making $250,000 a year who are buried in debt. The difference is behavior.
Trust:How does Heather Mills (for example) fit into JP Getty's concept?She has more money than you ever will have, and she will likely have it until she dies (those types of women are smart: they sign prenuptial agreements if they ever get married again).Are you saying that she is far better than you? I'm kind of confused.And no, the argument that "she is just a statistical fluctuation" is not valid at all.Rich guys usually have one or more rich ex-wives. Johnny Carson produced several ex-wives with more money than you will ever have. For example.But I'd like to hear the counterargument. Is it that it is an extremely rare case that people get rich off methods that don't involve work or business per se? I'm ready for that one, dude. Spring it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Take a look at the Forbes 500 list. A good chunk of them obviously got their money from someone else (cf. Mary Walton, or the Quandt family for instance) or - less arguably - got it from pandering to a trend (cf. Oprah Winfrey).But those are only 500 people. When you go a step lower, and then lower, and then lower, you see a mass of people - pretty much the majority of people - who got it off someone else.Let's look at Melinda Gates. She is arguably, by any definition, a multi-billionaire, but she is not listed on the Forbes List. Why not? She is a billionaire who enjoys the billionaire lifestyle and who has a legal claim to a good chunk of that money.But she is not listed anywhere as a rich bitch. Why not?
Here's the problem on this site:The advocates for "the rich" here are not rich themselves. Bill and Warren and Larry are not posting under assumed names. It is obvious from other comments (like some guy going back to school - with loans - when he is over 50) that lots of the advocates for the rich are not rich themselves.I think the idea is that they are absolutely going to get rich someday (because I am ME - and super, duper special), so they want to already reserve the respect they will get.Or something. *Yawn*Even worse, presumably female ("traditional") posters think they are going to get rich OFF A MAN, not even on their own. So they want to reserve their special nature of being rich (in the future) in that case.Silly.
The rich ARE different: They have more money.
@VMM: Have you considered the potential benefits of Zoloft? You are repeating yourself and this is getting tiresome.
ZorroPrimo:That's your counterargument? Dopey social-networking crap?I think people who worship "the rich" - especially with no regard to how they got it or whether they deserve it - are stupid.Discuss.
@VMM Who are you to say who 'deserves' their money?
LPF:I'm no one to say anything.But I would say that the entire discussion hinges on whether the "rich" deserved it. I'm discussing it.I'll give you an example:If the US government decided to confiscate all property within the bounds of the United States and all territories (like Puerto Rico and Guam), and then to distribute it based on names, for instance:A-M: Divides 95% of the wealthN-Z: Divides 5% of the wealthI assume that if your name is Zeke ZZypper, you would bitch (sorry, you are a loser), and if your name is Anna AAgard, you would be crowing about how you are superior.------Now I think that some of the rich have "earned it" and lots haven't. Heather Mills didn't earn that much money and Melinda Gates certainly didn't earn that much money.My idea is to let people who earned it ... keep it. Dumb fucks like Heather Mills should be taxed up the wazoo.But no one really agrees with me. The problem is that so many people who never earned their money want to have the respect of HAVING money. Like people who inherited it, or dumb cunt women who take it from stupid men.Sorry, I don't respect all of those people who never earned it themselves. I'm calling for other people to realize how stupid it is to worship dumb cunts like I described above. Let them have their money - but realize that they are truly dumb fucks who deserve no respect. Including women who claim to have some career (huh), but just leech off a man.
"I'm no one to say anything."Then shut the fuck up, loser.
I'm not the one who makes six posts in a row, all delivering the same sniveling rubbish. So take your ponderous lectures elsewhere. We don't require Your Exalted Highness condescending to us on His soapbox.
I used to be an absolute republican / conservative.I think the crack started one day when I was debating on-line with regard to affirmative action about MERIT. My idea was that schools should accept people based on MERIT, and not on social-engineering ideas (a good argument today would be that we have a BLACK president).A person was arguing along with me against affirmative action. I was under the impression that he thought the same as me - that admissions should be based on MERIT.Then another poster said that people like me also believed in "legacies" (the practice of giving stupid sons or daughters of alumni admission because of his or her parents). I naturally said that I only believed in MERIT, because that is what I believe.To my surprise, my co-arguer suddenly delivered a big argument about how the elite ARE better, so naturally legacies should exist. I parted ways, but was really surprised and disappointed.Many republicans / conservatives DO believe that there is an "elite" class that should be promoted by the government, with its own form of affirmative action in a sense (like school legacies).Then I started seeing that lots of typically left-wing movements were based on MERIT (for instance in Russia and China and pre-revolution France). They no longer thought that the entitled children of dopey Monarchs should get an advantage over people who friggin' WORK (the "proletariat"), at least based on government policies.I'm just taking it a step further: I think that people who WORK and who EARN their money should be protected against scum that DOESN'T earn their money. And that includes women filing divorce actions for lots and lots of money when they were dopey sit-at-homes and the man earned the big bucks. The man should keep what he earned.
Mike the plumber works his ass off and earned $80,000 last year with his own business. He supports a sit-at-home wife and two daughters in college. He is going to have to pay hefty income taxes.Heather Mills gets something in the ballpark of $50 million and pays no taxes whatsoever. She "earned" it by getting wined and dined.And there are people who think that is fair? Seriously, people exist on this planet that think it is fair? I can only imagine women who aim to extract money from men and clueless chivalrists thinking it is fair.
And to anyone who says: "Life is unfair" -Yes, I get it. But the government shouldn't have taxation policies that INCREASE unfairness (i.e. taxing people who EARNED their money and not taxing people who didn't).
Actually, there is something to think about above.
VMM - 80% of American millionaires are self-made. Stick that in your drum circle.
Alex writes:80% of American millionaires are self-made. Stick that in your drum circle.-------------------I would really be interested in where you got that figure. You know that 94.5% of all interest statistics are just made up.I just made up that statistic.But I would also like to see the definition of "self-made". I met a woman who was a self-made millionaire. After a bit of discussion, her (ex-)husband started a company with his idea and she "helped him". The court awarded her half, but since he was an electrical engineer, and she was a career housewife, I suspect that the electrical engineering idea came from him.
http://www.rd.com/money/secrets-of-successful-entrepreneurs/Here is something simple from a Reader's Digest article. Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, HVAC types also are most of our millionaires. Spending less than one makes isn't a bad idea. Paying attention and learning and investing aren't bad ideas either. Something that at times is bothersome, but effective, is the fact I have no revolving charge cards or credit cards. I simply don't use them. By the time something is in my possession, it belongs to me. I own it outright.
You aren't going to become a billionaire or even a millionaire by cutting some corners.
The misandric Suzie Ormann, for instance, didn't become a millionaire by cutting corners.She became a millionaire by telling others how to cut corners (and by pandering to women who just lap up anti-man sentiment).
MalSehen said... You aren't going to become a billionaire or even a millionaire by cutting some corners.My wife and I have a net worth of over a million dollars even if you don't include our house. We did it by spending less than we earned for over 20 years, saving and investing. We're 100% debt free. That's very comforting considering that my company has started laying off people recently. Should it happen, it'll hurt but we won't be devastated like so many others.What's with lumping billionares in with millionares? A billion is 1000 million so no, you aren't going to get there by saving. However, while a million dollars isn't what it used to be, it's certainly achieveable by ordinary people but it takes time and discipline.
Wisely invest 400 bucks a month for eight years consistently. Watch what happens after those first eight years.Ok, then 50. Or shut up.
fashion jewelry wholesalewholesale fashion jewelrychina jewelry wholesalechina fashion jewelryjewelry wholesale chinafashion jewelry chinawholesale jewelry jewelry wholesale
@br549: Incisive and irrefutable.
I put together a quick spreadsheet and ran some numbers. If some started putting $5000 a year into an IRA at age 22 and continued to age 65, the account could grow to over $640,000 if the average interest was 5 percent. Time is the biggest factor. Starting even 10 years later would reduce the final amount considerably.
The north face outlet store in Internet record has done video pity only a zephyr currently. A delayed download speeds as well as bad peculiarity videos have been no some-more animate.
I don't know if it is actually true, and know I'm not the only one who has heard this, but supposedly Einstein was amazed at the "magic of compound interest."
While I've never seen a citation where he said it, Einstein allegedly once say that compound interest was the most powerful force in the universe or something like that. However, this may be an urban myth.
I am all over compound interest, but no way do I think the man who came up with E=mc2 got wood over compound effing interest.That's like drawing Jessica Rabbit and going nuts over Betty White.Puh-LEAZE!
I'm no Einstein, but I do get wood over compound interest. Hell, I get wood over good quality power tools and my guitars.
My fave power tools are Bosch, although I retain a great respect for Makita and DeWalt.I can't play guitar, but due to my lifelong adulation of Jimmy Page and Joe Perry, I flip over Gibson guitars. Les. Paul. Is. The. Living. God.Eddie Van Halen is another matter. For another time.
VMM,The basic issue is not whether the rich "deserve it" or not, it is whether anyone else has the right to take from one to give to another because “they” think that someone has too much or did not earn what they have. As long as what one has was “earned” and not stolen or obtained through illegal or coheresive means, what do you care how much they have or what they do with it?What you call “rick envy” is really “just leave my stuff alone”. Most people just want the ability to make their way and acquire what they will without someone else taking from them the fruits of their labor to give to another.It does not matter if it is a court ordered (one sided) divorce settlement, a bail out of a crony corporation, or a welfare queen, I do not want to be forced to give up one penny more than is absolutely necessary for the functioning of a lean, efficient government. I want the freedom to save or spend MY money as I see fit, not as some politician sees fit.Oh, and despite your claims to the contrary, as others have noted, either you know how to manage money or you do not. If you do not, no amount of money is enough and you will never have enough.
Post a Comment