OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Elected politician ? You don't make money by working, you hire folks to work. Hemingway, Rich people are different from you and I, they have more money.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Right-to-Work=Master and Servant
- Thread starter OutofDate1980
- Start date
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Define "rich people". I ask because some people consider me "rich". I don't. I make slightly more than the household average here in the US. I live very frugally. My house will be paid off in 4-5 years at which point I will have no debt at all. I make it a habit to squirrel away a few hundred bucks every pay check no matter what I have to sacrifice to do so. Because of this I can afford to buy pretty much whatever I want within reason and pay cash for it. If I can't cash flow it I can reach into my slush fund. No biggie. So a lot of people consider me to be rich even though I work side by side with people who make the same money I do but live pay check to pay check. Define rich.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
The quote was Hemingway's, but have found this conversation between Fitzgerald and him is a myth.
So what is "rich", it's a granular definition, say one's net worth put's one within the top 1% of a given population, would generally be describe as rich. One could also include income given the same criteria.
I would think that if one derives wealth or income over a certain level, say a $million from unearned income, then most would call that being "rich".
Anyway, a better definition is one of comparison between a defined population.
So what is "rich", it's a granular definition, say one's net worth put's one within the top 1% of a given population, would generally be describe as rich. One could also include income given the same criteria.
I would think that if one derives wealth or income over a certain level, say a $million from unearned income, then most would call that being "rich".
Anyway, a better definition is one of comparison between a defined population.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
That's the thing though. My grandparents have a net worth of over $3 mil dollars. By one definition they would be considered rich. However they live in the same house they've lived in for the past 20 years. It's long since been paid for. They drove an early 80s 4 dr sedan up until 2-3 years ago. They only buy stuff when it's on sale. They steal ketchup packets from McD's so they don't have to buy condiments. If you looked at the way they live you would think I am richer than them but my net worth is not anywhere close to theirs and may never be. But many of my friends consider me rich and many people don't consider my grandparents to be rich because of their lifestyle.
In either case I find the entire premise that rich people are somehow "evil" to be ridiculously silly.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more evil to more people, than those with less means. Examples, Milken, Maddoff, Lay, Keating, Sanford, etc.
Off-hand, I wouldn't call your grandparents "rich" with a net worth of $3mil, but if that was average income over a period of years, especially unearned, then that's a different call.
As previously mentioned, it's relative to the defined population as what is considered "rich". $3mil of assets is not within the top 1%.
Off-hand, I wouldn't call your grandparents "rich" with a net worth of $3mil, but if that was average income over a period of years, especially unearned, then that's a different call.
As previously mentioned, it's relative to the defined population as what is considered "rich". $3mil of assets is not within the top 1%.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
My grandpa was a oil man so I'm sure he would qualify as evil just by that definition.
I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more good to more people than those with less means.
I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more good to more people than those with less means.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Oil does pollute, causing future health issues and death, but on the other hand not having energy causes immediate health issues and death.
So I guess is doing nothing to prevent future problems is "evil", depends on one's ability and objectives.
Those that are focused on obtaining great wealth, accomplishing more good to more people is not a main objective in most cases, which doesn't imply "evil" intent. It all depends in the bloody details. I would conjecture that "drug lords" would be considered evil.
So I guess is doing nothing to prevent future problems is "evil", depends on one's ability and objectives.
Those that are focused on obtaining great wealth, accomplishing more good to more people is not a main objective in most cases, which doesn't imply "evil" intent. It all depends in the bloody details. I would conjecture that "drug lords" would be considered evil.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
So you make no differentiation between those who are focused on obtaining wealth above all else and those who are simply wealthy and all of them are "evil"? The presumption that just because someone has wealth means they are evil or that they somehow did something evil to get there is just beyond wrong.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
It's a common Democratic talking point. They bring up the rich do this, the rich do that, etc, etc.... The entire premise is that it's somehow wrong to be rich.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Perhaps, but I would argue that most "rich" people do far more good than bad. Certainly, many create jobs. the people you mentioned are/were evil. They do not represent the majority of those I consider rich, to be sure.
Interesting that the dems never mention the many actors, singers, rappers and others that are very rich, whenever they discuss how evil the "rich" are.
Gmash
Extreme Android User
No, that's a Republican talking point to say the Democrats hate rich people. To ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes isn't exactly calling for their heads, which is how they act.
bberryhill0
Android Expert
2% own half of everything and half the people own 1%. That's a problem because the poor are violently bored and they breed.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Exactly, therefor by Republican logic, all rich people are good, all poor people are evil, and give perpetual excuses when the rich are caught.
Enron, Worldcom, Milken junk bonds, Madoff, Tyco International, AIG, Libor, the list is endless.
Great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes, and due to great wealth those with sufficient "juice" are not investigated nor prosecuted.
Whistle blowing laws in private industry along with regulation are needed and enforcement needs to be isolated from politics.
Republicans need to realize that capitalism is conducted by humans and humans can have flaws, especially when large amounts of money are involved.
Gmash
Extreme Android User
Regulations are bad m'kay. Lol. I see it more that they think all poor people are lazy parasites, not necessarily evil.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Great wealth gives the opportunity to do great good. But let's completely ignore this and just go with great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes. Wait a minute. I own a car. So I have the opportunity to drive down a sidewalk and mow down dozens of people. Cars must be bad too.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Which part of great wealth is unclear. Owning a car is a stupid comparison.
Owning synthetic credit default swap contracts, which is a bet that your neighbor will die leads to a lot of mischief and profit.
Owning synthetic credit default swap contracts, which is a bet that your neighbor will die leads to a lot of mischief and profit.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Red herring much? The part you quoted specifically said that 99.5% of the population doesn't have access to investments, options, and real estate. That is completely and totally bogus. Please tell me how 99.5% of the population does not have access to such things.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik - YouTube
That's very true! That said I have seen unions here at home mature quite a bit during our economic crisis. I do have a lot of gripes with them but perhaps we can make them more Nordic like in time. Obviously the US is a lot different, massive polarisation and stuff.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
They don't have the minimum $1m to enter this type of contract.
Gmash
Extreme Android User
I was wondering where you've been. I thought maybe you found a new place to annoy the conservatives lol. I'm too lazy to put as much work into it as you do.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
You don't need $1m to start investing. Attitudes like that ensure that one will always be poor.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Keep focused. We are talking about synthetic credit default swaps. Can you counter my assertion ? Actually you can, it takes about a $1b, but $1m can be made in increments. Check with your broker, keep focused, use the term "synthetic credit default swap". Do you need a definition ?
Explain how the "average" investor can invest in this type of contract and why this attitude one will always be poor. Your ignorance on how wealth is maintained is amazing.
Bob Blaylock
Well-Known Member
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Why would the average investor be interested in synthetic credit default swaps? If you had $1m, where are you going to find a broker who's going to recommend such an extremely high risk investment? It's a ridiculous argument from the extreme. The idea that you can't invest is what will lock you into being poor for the rest of your life. Your irrational dislike for rich people is mind boggling.