|
| Thread: The role of luck in success |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 16, 2011 02:21 AM |
|
|
I am unaware that I am standing in the path of a speeding car. Someone forces me out of the way and saves my life.
Harmful for me?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 02:34 AM |
|
|
wow, there are stuffs which actually make sense in economy classes?
Quote:
we must be careful not to confuse a random process with a process over which we have no control.
in that case, that doesn't make much difference. you have no idea what to do. you can try as hard as you can, it's just a matter of luck if you eventually do the right thing.
Quote:
Clearly, just about anyone can be a trash man, yet it takes a very specific skill set to be a doctor.
but as JJ said, weirdly, when they are on strike (the trash men) it quickly becomes a mess. so yeah, everyone can do it, but looks like many people would rather live in their trash. doesn't it make it valuable too, when it is easy but no one wants to do it?
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 03:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The appropriate solution is to put the poor on the path to success. That may take some of my tax dollars of course but I’m far more willing to part with tax money in this way...
There are already government programs that do that, I brought that up in my previous post.
But anyways in regards to the rest of your post, with all due respect I think you yourself are falling for the illusion. If a person whom is not yourself has fallen on hard times it is natural to assume the failing is caused by an internal fault; ie they are lazy, that they are deviant, that they angred the gods etc. But if something happens to yourself and not another person, well it natural to believe that it's because of external factors; like something bad happened to you but that it wasn't your fault.
You and I have never met, but if you are an average human being then by default you have already assumed that my poverty is a result of lazyness. As an individual and have having observed many others in like situations, I have proven out that this is not the case. Mathematically, this is supported also because of simple multiplication. The greater resource applied initially brings about a greater sum at the outcome, ie greater wealth and opportunity. For these reasons I know better than to fall for such an illusion (of wealth belonging to its possessors on account of righteousness and poverty belonging to the poor because of the sumation of their faults) and so does Obama. Hence I would agree with his drive for greater though not perfect income equalty.
There are other reasons I agree with the president as well.
Firstly the nordic, socialist, nightmare states like Sweden have higher per person income than America. At the very least this suggests that increased income equality will not discourge work, which could even mean that being a socialist democracy is good for economic growth.
Secondly, rich people waste a lot of food. America throws 1/4 of its food away and people on the wealther end of the spectrum do most of it because they can afford it. If the richest 2% of the population has less money then their standard of living can remain intact and less food will be wasted.
Thirdly increased income equality would make it a little harder for the wealthy to contribute to political campaigns and a little easier for the poor to contribute therefore spreading control of the political process.
Fourthly, it is ethicly wrong to let people die when you have the power to save them. The president has the power (and responsibility)to save them so he should. Plus people that are currently unemployed could prove to be productive later on if they are kept alive. Another note is that if there is a continuous negative social pressures on the general population for a significant amount of time, it can lead to social and even national instability. Starving and jobless persons are often the ones whom start wars or commit crimes as a means of liberation from a repressive system.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 03:33 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
That's not really an initiation of force because had you known about it, you would have asked to have it done.
Raelag:
Actually, the Nordic "socialist" countries have relatively high economic freedom.
Quote:
Fourthly, it is ethicly wrong to let people die when you have the power to save them.
I don't agree. Why does anyone owe them anything?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 03:50 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
Edited by Jabanoss at 03:57, 16 Apr 2011.
|
@Corribus
The expression: To earn a fortune, couldn't that be deduced into meaning fortunate = rich?
I don't know if randomness really exist, but that's a question for another time. However I do wonder, is lightning random and but to be conceived isn't? No matter the answer for this question we both know that the protagonist cannot affect any of it.(well... possibly the lightning  )
So lets ignore the thing we cannot change(genetics, nationality, wealthy parents), because otherwise I would argue that the successful athlete has indeed been lucky with things he cannot change such as having the right mindset, body and environment.
Did you react at me writing mindset? Everything in our mind is initially based on our genetics, so natural things like being persistent and stubborn could often be out of our control. Most of these thing can be trained, but the ability to change and train is also based on things we cannot control.
I don't think there much wrong with my arguments, but make no mistake I also do think it's the wrong way of seeing it. If you have an hard time training, learning or adopting you'll have no other choice but to try even harder.
That is the idea, and probably also the proper way of thinking.
In order for this to work in reality however, we must make sure everyone have a chance at overcoming their “bad luck”. Because there are a lot of small factors that under certain conditions could be huge obstacles for some people. Obstacles that with minor help from a greater mass could easily remove.
(I'm really tired at this point, so I'll come back with more on this later)
And the point of spreading diseases among healthy people in order to make it fair is just laughable. The point of redistributing wealth is to make it better and give people more chances. Where as a “redistribution” of illness would only make things worse.(well except for the fact that someone is always benefiting from peoples suffering.)
Again I must ask you something, what do you want us to talk about? If we are successful due to luck or due to thing that we cannot affect? Because just like you stated, they're entirely different,
and like I said I could continue to argue about how everything is based on luck, and that would only lead to nasty thing such if luck and randomness really exist and so on.
@Mvass
Quote:
Actually, the Nordic "socialist" countries have relatively high economic freedom.
Which goes to prove that a strong social network can coexist with a high economic freedom. The so called punishment that the highly paid must endure hardly stops them from being fully productive. (And if it would, they would be just as bad as the lazy unemployed.)
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 07:32 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 07:36, 16 Apr 2011.
|
Hmm, I see now my post was extremely quote-y. I apologize, for it's very difficult to read. My excuse is that it's late and my eyes are very tire.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz
@Fauch
Quote:
, when they are on strike (the trash men) it quickly becomes a mess. so yeah, everyone can do it, but looks like many people would rather live in their trash. doesn't it make it valuable too, when it is easy but no one wants to do it?
I think you’re missing the point. The value is not in the job that is being done, but in the difficulty of replacing the person who is doing it. If you’re going to sit here and tell me that the skills required to be a heart surgeon are as easy to learn as the skills required to be a trash man, then you’re just being willfully obstinate.
I never said that the job a trash man does is not valuable. I’m saying there has to be some accounting for the fact that a trash man is easier to replace than a heart surgeon.
@Raelag
Quote:
You and I have never met, but if you are an average human being then by default you have already assumed that my poverty is a result of lazyness.
And with all due respect, you are making a grossly inaccurate assumption about my perception. I’ve said nothing of the sort. I’ve implied that poverty or wealth, in general, cannot be wholly attributed to chance.
Quote:
(of wealth belonging to its possessors on account of righteousness and poverty belonging to the poor because of the sumation of their faults)
Where are you getting this? I certainly never said anything at all about morality!
Quote:
Hence I would agree with his drive for greater though not perfect income equalty.
Just out of curiosity, do you think income equality is even possible?
Quote:
Firstly the nordic, socialist, nightmare states like Sweden have higher per person income than America.
1. If you’re going to be sarcastic and put words in my mouth, I’ll just stop right now. You want to have a serious discussion? Fine. Treat my arguments with respect and I’ll do the same for you, OK?
2. If you’re going to quote a statistic, be kind enough to supply a source.
3.
Quote:
At the very least this suggests that increased income equality will not discourge work, which could even mean that being a socialist democracy is good for economic growth.
I don’t see how your statistic, if it’s true, suggests that at all. For one thing, according to your statistic, the average income is higher in Sweden. That says nothing about the income distribution. For another, even if your statistic showed the income distribution to be narrower in Sweden than the US, you’re making another leap in logic to connect income to work. For a third, you make yet another leap in logic to connect your argument to economic growth. None of this is substantiated at all, and for that matter your argument, such as it is, neglects the millions of other factors (many of them nonscientific) that affect these economic relationships, not to mention the complexity of measuring economic statistics in the first place.
Quote:
Secondly, rich people waste a lot of food. America throws 1/4 of its food away and people on the wealther end of the spectrum do most of it because they can afford it. If the richest 2% of the population has less money then their standard of living can remain intact and less food will be wasted.
Sources for your ¼ statistic? Statistics to show the problem is worse for wealthier people? And what the heck does this have to do with the discussion at hand – that is, what does wasting food have to do with the issue of whether luck plays a role in success, and whether the factor of LUCK gives a government the right to equalize wealth? Hell, what does this have to do with anything at all, other than as a peripheral emotional argument to justify your agenda here?
Quote:
Thirdly increased income equality would make it a little harder for the wealthy to contribute to political campaigns and a little easier for the poor to contribute therefore spreading control of the political process.
Except that Obama, a far left-wing politician, has had some of the biggest campaign donations in history. Don’t get me wrong – we need campaign finance reform desperately, but this is such a silly reason to justify redistribution of wealth that the fact that you’d include it does your position more harm than good. The fact that the biggest donors to the Democratic party are often the über-rich sort of discredits it in any case.
Quote:
Fourthly, it is ethicly wrong to let people die when you have the power to save them.
I’d rather not pull morality into this. That’s an argument you won’t win because it can’t be won. Nobody can win it. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, so I’m just going to politely disagree with you rather than get myself into a fight over what is moral and what isn’t. Beyond that, I’ll remind you that what is moral or ethical for the individual is not necessarily the same as what the government should be mandated to do. I.e., I’m of the firm opinion that the government does not have the right to force other people to do what a smaller group of people think is moral or ethical. I happen to think the government should let people save themselves, or giving them the means to do so if it can. I advocate a minimalist government that spends money on things that benefit everyone equally rather than wasting time and money on what I see as fruitless and extremely wasteful social engineering projects that don’t benefit me in the slightest. And no amount of moral, guilt-trip proselytizing is going to convince me otherwise.
As for all the other stuff about negative social pressures, national instability and the impact of poverty on the crime rate, all I can say is that we’ve had welfare, unemployment insurance and whole gaggle of other wasteful entitlement programs here in the US for over half a century, and there are still starving, jobless poor people who commit crimes and blame their woes on a supposedly repressive system. Rather than just giving money to people who trade their food stamps away at the entrance to grocery stores for half their food value so they can go buy beer and alcohol, all those entitlement dollars would be far better spent, IMO, in investments that improve infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) or returned to working taxpayers, who now account for less than half of the US population, who can invest in our limping economy.
But that’s just my opinion, and it really is well away from the intended focus of this thread, which was supposed to be about LUCK.
@mvass
Quote:
That's not really an initiation of force because had you known about it, you would have asked to have it done.
Fine. I won’t contest the logic yet. Instead:
I’m getting ready to commit suicide by jumping off a building. Someone grabs me and forces me away from the ledge. I enter therapy, turn my life around and become a millionaire.
Harmful for me?
@Jabanoss
Quote:
The expression: To earn a fortune, couldn't that be deduced into meaning fortunate = rich?
Indeed, and I’ll let you ponder over the fact that the English noun “fortune” both means “good luck” and “massive wealth”. That says more about our society’s perceptions of the origin of wealth than any other argument I could possibly give.
Quote:
I don't know if randomness really exist, but that's a question for another time. However I do wonder, is lightning random and but to be conceived isn't?
No, it’s not random at all, but because the forces are so complex as to totally obscure our ability to formulate a deterministic relationship (cause and effect), our perception algorithm essentially treats a lightning strike as a random effect. It’s actually a nice analogy, because the forces which determine the state of the economy and, indeed, an individual’s life, are equally complex. The human mind can only handle so much complexity – a suitably complex system appears, for all intents and purposes, random to an independent observer, and the more ignorant the observer is to the forces involved, the less complexity he can tolerate before leaping to the conclusion that luck or chance (or a supernatural being) must be involved.
I’m impressed, Jabanoss. I do believe you have struck upon the origin of our (by which I mean society’s) hang-up on luck’s alleged relationship to the attainment of wealth and success.
Quote:
Did you react at me writing mindset? Everything in our mind is initially based on our genetics, so natural things like being persistent and stubborn could often be out of our control. Most of these thing can be trained, but the ability to change and train is also based on things we cannot control.
Hmmm. I think you’re treading in difficult territory.
First, I don’t know that I accept that everything in our mind is based on genetics. Initially, perhaps. But environment and experience plays a large role in our cognitive development, so I don’t think you can chalk up mindset to solely genetics.
Second, you can’t change the physical nature of your brain, and you may not be able to control emotions and basic biochemical urges – which are largely determined through genetics – but you can control your actions, can you not? This is embodied in our code of laws. We don’t punish anyone (anymore) for their thoughts or intents. We punish people for their actions.
Nevertheless, nobody has sufficiently proven that something which is beyond our control has anything to do with luck, so that’s still the primary sticking point.
Quote:
(I'm really tired at this point, so I'll come back with more on this later)
Please do, because I’m not quite following you. I like your critical thinking and also your willingness to not dismiss my (minority) viewpoint out of hand. Thanks.
Quote:
And the point of spreading diseases among healthy people in order to make it fair is just laughable. The point of redistributing wealth is to make it better and give people more chances. Where as a “redistribution” of illness would only make things worse.(well except for the fact that someone is always benefiting from peoples suffering.)
Well, of course that was just tongue in cheek to make a point. But I urge you to just consider this for a moment – you are fixated on taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor in order to evenly distribute wealth. Well, you can look at it another way as well: the same process effectively takes deficits from the poor and gives them to the rich in order to evenly distribute poverty.
I hate to go back to thermodynamics again, but consider also that to force any system out of equilibrium requires an input of energy which often cannot be recovered (in chemical systems this is called heat). A system of homogeneous wealth is not in equilibrium, because if it was, the system would spontaneously get there eventually. The fact that there is still a distribution of wealth despite our many efforts to the contrary suggests that the “natural” system (note, there is no quality statement being made by my use of the word “natural”) is one where there are rich people and poor people. Thus to try to narrow that distribution requires an input of energy, which in the world of economics is equal to labor and capital (money). This is really just common sense of course. If government wants to make everyone equally wealthy, government is going to have to spent money and man-hours to do it, because that’s not how society, or nature for that matter, is usually structured. That money goes into the system to drive the change and is effectively wasted from a thermodynamic standpoint (it’s dispersed as heat or waste, to use engineering terms). The narrower you want to make that distribution, the more energy it’s going to cost.
What’s the point? The point is that even if you COULD narrow the wealth distribution through enforcement, the mean wealth before the process occurs and after will not be the same. (For simplicity, I assume the system is isolated, which of course is not the case – I’m making a point here, not trying to be exhaustively realistic.) This is because you have to use wealth to force the change and maintain it. The government is also notoriously inefficient, so in the end the effect may be hardly noticeable (despite the great cost) or so costly that all of society ends up noticeably poorer for your efforts.
Sigh – the scientist in me always sees things in statistical thermodynamic terms and I get carried away. Damn Lord Kelvin to hell!! 
Lastly:
Quote:
Again I must ask you something, what do you want us to talk about? If we are successful due to luck or due to thing that we cannot affect? Because just like you stated, they're entirely different,
Meh, talk about what you want. The point of the thread was to talk about what luck is and how it impacts society and wealth. I’m happy for it to go where it wants to go. I’m just happy to have a thread that isn’t a fight over religion or morality for once.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:27 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
I could make two different arguments, both of which have some merit.
1. Yes, it was harmful for you. Force was initiated to prevent you from peacefully getting what you want. It's no different from any other situation in which your actions are constrained by force.
2. No, it wasn't harmful for you, because this is what you in the future would have reasonably been expected to have wanted to have done. Sometimes parents justifiably initiate force against their children, and later their children are happy about it. So in a sense it's not against your preferences. It's similar to the car example - it's what you would've wanted that person to have done.
So it's either harmful or not really an initiation of force.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 10:04 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
|
Corribus, I realize that I'm a bit late in the discussion, but your analysis is not correct. Your way to see things is based on wrong language and the use of wrong terms. You are simply mistaking three different terms, that you don't use correcly:
1) LUCK
2) FORTUNE
3) CHANCE
There is a certain "grey area" where they are vague enough to be kinterchangable, but the meaning of the words are different.
So where IS the difference?
I'm not going to make this a work of science - instead, if you look at the things you will use "lucky" as a description, it's always the things when luck is "blind". That is, when odds come into play, and the odds are against you: a lucky die roll, a lucky shot, a lucky outcome. Luck can even be a bad outcome - if the odds were on a worse one.
When are you fortunate? Fortunate - when used in the luck area of mwaning - will used to describe situations when the odds aren't clear, but things turn out well. For example, you would describe a marriage as "fortunate", when everything the married do turns out well: they live happily with each other, their children have turned out well, and everything they try is successful. The word will be used in a comparable sense as "blessed".
You could also say thaat "fortunate" means that you are spared bad breaks or bad luck, and everything goes as worked out or as you would wish.
Or you could say that the factors that are "beyond control" are working well.
CHANCE is something happenstancial which can be both lucky and unlucky, but it is used when you are basically surprised (you actually didn't do anything except being somewhere or sometime)
Basically, this means that the "beyond our control versus random process" is meaningless: if you don't like the use of the word "luck" in connection with being born either in Zimbabwe or France, simple call it "good fortune".
It's just a matter of perspective. If something with low odds is beyond your control, but you happen to profit from it, what DID you do to deserve or earn it? Nothing.
So why make a difference? If you simply take the number of all people and pick one RANDOMLY, how big is the chance you pick someone "fortunate"?
The doctor/trashman thing. You say, you don't see luck playing any role here, and you list things like genetics, health and so on.
The problem is, that when you say "LUCK", what you actually mean is CHANCE, which is something different.
No, CHANCE has - with high odds - nothing to do with one being doctor and one trashman, but lots of factors out of control of one or the other. Most trashmen never had any chance to become a doctor, no matter how hard they would have tried (and that they wouldn't even try has reasons beyond their control as well).
So does the doctor deserve everything because he had the potential and didn't throw it away?
EDIT: I realize now, that I can say this way simpler. What Corribus is saying, is more or less this: Fortune and Luck are the same, and if chance doesn't play a role, you can't call it luck.
I obviously think that this is wrong.
Also, ask yourself a question: If you could pick a comparison what life is - would you compare it with a game of poker or a game of chess (or, since chess is somewhat limited to the mind to a wrestling match).
If you picked poker, why did you do it? Because you don't think luck plays any part in it?
In fact, you CAN compare it quite well with poker, let's say a round of Texas Hold 'em. First of all - note, that you have no control here - you are dealt two cards. If it's, for example, the diamond 7 and the spade 2, chances to win the pot (that is, become a fortunate)are abysmally low. No matter how hard you try, the chances that you succeed are minimal.
Starting with the Ace and King of Hearts, on the other hand, is actually a pretty good one.
You can classify these hands on the born millionaire/born famine area sides of life.
Obviously the INTERESTING cards are those that are in-between, the hands that do need work, say, the 8 and 9 of Clubs. There ARE better combinations to begin with, but they STILL offer chances. The Flop may bring, say 2 Club cards and/or any two cards between 5 and Queen, so that a Straight is possible ("and" being of course better than "or"). Does it come down exclusively to "work" (in this case gut feeling and manipulation of the table with money)? Not so. If you are in a favorable (not lucky) position at the table, you may get an option to see the flop cheaply - translate: it may be unnecessary to commit yourself and bet a lot of money/put in a hell of a lot of effort. Transferred to life it means, you have virtually been dealt acceptabel cards (born in a comparatively rich land to at least average parents in average circumstances or in an average land with above average parents), and you like school and are good in it, have talents and can develop them.
As opposed to that you may have to commit yourself - someone has raised, and maybe another has raised again: commit yourself or not? This translates into a bit stonier story. Your neighborhood may be bad, and while you COULD be good in school, it's gangland out there and you have to make a decision. Or your parental situation is complicated and you simply can't concentrate on studying, but have to help at day and study at night.
See, where this is heading to?
2nd EDIT: What exactly is soeciety and (limited) "redistribution of wealth" exactly aiming at?
I'll be cynical and say, we have realized that it is better to give something to the really poor hands, instead to wait until they get a fit and throw down the gaming table or simply take the chips violently - in other words: since people are not playing voluntarily we somehow have to make sure that the bad hands keep playing and by the rules at that.
We also have realized that it would be no fun to simply say just before showdown, to hell with the hole cards everyone has, let's just share everything equally.
To keep within the picture, Elodin may be a guy who really worked hard to win the pot. He may have started out with 10-6, but instead of simply folding and taling the alms the winners might hand him, he decided to work on it. He committed a lot of money, manipulating the table and may have ended with winning a small pot for his effort. He is now understandably reluctant to hand his neighbor, who started with 8-3 and folded, a share of his winnings - he DID work hard to make the pot.
However, I think we DO agree that the guy who started out with the two red Aces, then the Flop being Spade Ace, Spade 2 and Heart 2, Turn being the Club Ace, and River Spade 9, with everyone bidding and him making a really fat pot can't make the same point and deny that it has been an effortless pleasure.
EDIT 3: To make the poker analogy fit better, we may imagine life as a series of rounds, ALL of which you will play with the same hole cards you have been dealt at start, but with different community cards each round. The number of rounds you can play at all is limited as well, no one knowing how many they will be able to play. Unfairly enough, one of your hole cards determines the amount of chips you start with.
I think, this analogy is QUITE good. I thin k further, it makes sense to give people, as long as they stick to the rules, at least the minimum ante to play the next round.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 02:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But anyways in regards to the rest of your post, with all due respect I think you yourself are falling for the illusion. If a person whom is not yourself has fallen on hard times it is natural to assume the failing is caused by an internal fault; ie they are lazy, that they are deviant, that they angred the gods etc.
Quite often it is. Drug use is very common these days and drugs and jobs don't mix. Drugs and health not mix. Bad habits and health don't mix. Failure to save for a rainy day means when a rainy day comes you will be in need.
Quote:
The greater resource applied initially brings about a greater sum at the outcome, ie greater wealth and opportunity.
If my wife dies before I do and I leave all my resources to my children....lets say for sake of argument, 100 million dollars...what is that to you? I worked for it. No one besides my family has any right to what I work for.
While my children may be gifted with a financial resource others are gifted in different ways. Others may have better health, better relationships, be able to run faster, be able to lift more weight, be better at math, be better writers, ect.
People all have different opportunities and different talents.
The thing is are you going to stick your finger (or a gun) in somebody's face and say, "Give me what you have!" That seems pretty greedy to me. It is not "rich" people who are greedy. It is people who want to steal what they have who are greedy.
Quote:
For these reasons I know better than to fall for such an illusion (of wealth belonging to its possessors on account of righteousness and poverty belonging to the poor because of the sumation of their faults) and so does Obama. Hence I would agree with his drive for greater though not perfect income equalty.
Wealth does belong to the possessors if the possessors got the wealth morally. What I have I worked for it. No one has a moral claim to anything I work for (other than my family.)
There will never be "income equality." In socialist nations there is not "income equality." The party officials will always live in a mansion and have a greater income than the peons who serve them.
Everyone has the opportunity to work, barring some great disability. Let everyone who wants more work more/harder/smarter/get a better job(s.)
Of course I realize some nations are oppressive and have little economic freedom. In that case work to change your nation into a capitalist nation.
Quote:
Secondly, rich people waste a lot of food.
That is incorrect for the most part. I could argue that a lot of money that is given to poor people is spent on drugs, booze, junk food, lottery tickets, prostitutes, ect.
Quote:
America throws 1/4 of its food away and people on the wealther end of the spectrum do most of it because they can afford it. If the richest 2% of the population has less money then their standard of living can remain intact and less food will be wasted.
Do you have a link for your statistics?
Quote:
Thirdly increased income equality would make it a little harder for the wealthy to contribute to political campaigns and a little easier for the poor to contribute therefore spreading control of the political process.
Rich people have a smaller voice than "the poor" because the large number of the poor can vote in more people and vote to take the money away from "the rich."
Quote:
Fourthly, it is ethicly wrong to let people die when you have the power to save them.
It is ethically wrong to steal from a person whether you use a gun or a politician as your weapon.
Quote:
The president has the power (and responsibility)to save them so he should.
The founding fathers said otherwise. There is no provision in the Constitution for redistribution of wealth, such a concept was condemned by the founding fathers, and such a thing is detrimental to the free enterprise system.
I believe I already quoted what some of the founding fathers said about this in my first post.
Like the founding fathers, I believe in charity, not welfare. Welfare is someone taking your money by force to give it to someone else. Charity is giving to a person in need of your own free will. Charity benefits the giver and the receiver, unlike welfare.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 02:28 PM |
|
|
@Corribus
Quote:
For one thing, genes aren’t randomly determined. You get them from your parents. Which means that there are a limited number of options – i.e., the genes you could possibly get aren’t drawn from the entire realm of possibilities. However, what genes you do get from the possible combinations of your parents’ genes are randomly determined (50/50, say, of getting a dominant trait if one of your parents is homozygous recessive and one is heterozygous). Luck? Well, hold on. Consider: the gene pool you have access to is not randomly determined – your father CHOSE your mother (and vice-versa), and in so doing CHOSE your gene pool. No, you have no control over it, but the available combinations from which your genes were derived certainly weren’t randomly determined. And if any step in a sequence of processes is non-random, then the overall process is non-random, even if it has some random elements.
Your father chose your mother, but have you chosen your parents? No, definitively no. One is either lucky to have great parents, or cursed to have horrible. If one's born to two pathological alcoholics, it wasn't really HIS choice at all, it was a "dice roll".
Quote:
[I will, however, rather incredulously, call out Doom’s statement that every talent is the result of a dice roll (implied: determined at birth or before). Really? Doesn’t that trivialize every accomplishment made by any person ever? Brilliance might be chalked up to genetics – which aren’t random anyway – but you think every successful violinist, architect, doctor, astronomer, philosopher, comedian, actor, carpenter, acrobat and novelist had nothing to do with their talents or the development of their talents? I find that as depressing as it is indefensible.]
Sure, they have a lot. The thing is pretty simple. Imagine me training football 8 hours per day, and imagine Lionel Messi training football 8 hours per day. We both have good coaches, we both are determined. In the end he's a star player of Barcelona, and I'm at best having fun for free in an amateur team of friends.
TALENT is luck based. It either is there, or not. Genetics aren't an answer since a lot of talented people came from completly pathological parents with no signs of talent at all. Of course you need to discover and develop it, but for Messi, it lead to Barcelona, for me trying to mimic him, it would lead nowhere.
Now tell me that ain't luck
As JJ pointed out, I think you confused some things. Lucky =/= random. Pre determined may also be lucky. It's just that exactly YOU are in this pre-determined place that's lucky. Not that the whole situation was a result of a coin toss.
A simple example: you entered an amateur tournament of football players. Your friend worked hard as a couch for years, but he leads 9th league players. You for some reason got Barcelona players for that tournament. And you win. Was that a coin toss? not exactly. Was it lucky? sure as hell. Is effort, "hard work" and all that stuff of any use in such situation? no.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Quote:
1. Because the economy is a 0 sum system(almost)
Not even close. Every time there is any kind of voluntary exchange (assuming there's no fraud), there is a gain. It's definitely not zero-sum.
If economy is not a zero-sum system, that means it is either impossible to achive stagnation, or that there can be massive increases in total amount of real value money in circulation.
Note the "almost" part please, because it implies that I say that economics is almost a zero sum system, with exceptions.
A example:
1. Printing money causes inflation
2. Buying back and burning money causes deflation
The issue about economics is a lot simpler than that: It is too large for it to be thought of as a zero-sum system by anyone inside the economy.
Add on that if someone aquires all currency, that currency would be useless.
Quote:
Quote:
If those 10% was invested, they would move.
What I'd like to know is how higher taxes are going to lead to higher investment.
Depends on how long the answer you want is.
The simple answer is this: For each % of tax, the 10% thrown into the bank would be a lot less. Providing that the goverment is forced to actually spend everything it aquires, that means the taxed amount will get back into circulation.
-
We also have game theory and human psycology: If someone is going to take your money if you do not use it, then you will most likely invest that money into something.
-
Of course, it is entire possible to choke apart the economy with tax too, which means that any government should be aware that such a limitation likely exist.
Personally I sort of doubt it goes into effect before you either have a 100% over a certain amount, or a too steep progressive tax.
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, threat of force to make a person live with freedom is better than having each person have infinite amount of threats and thus take freedom of each other.
Of course, which is why I said taxation is a necessary evil. If I didn't, I'd say it was an unnecessary evil. 
Hehe, good to know we agree <3
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 05:21 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Sorry, all I have time for this morning is a quick skim, so I won't yet respond to your nice post. I'll get to that later.
I did want to address very quickly one thing written by Doomforge (I'll get to the rest of yours later as well):
Quote:
If one's born to two pathological alcoholics, it wasn't really HIS choice at all, it was a "dice roll".
Supposing you, Doomforge, were born to two pathological alcoholics, is there then a chance you, Doomforge, could have been born to someone else?
Let me rephrase. Did Doomforge exist before the moment of conception?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 05:30 PM |
|
|
I really don't want to go there in this topic
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you’re missing the point. The value is not in the job that is being done, but in the difficulty of replacing the person who is doing it. If you’re going to sit here and tell me that the skills required to be a heart surgeon are as easy to learn as the skills required to be a trash man, then you’re just being willfully obstinate.
well, of course, but there isn't only the skills to consider.
take an easy job, which requires little skill, but is dangerous. should we only consider the fact that it requires little skill, and that it's easy to replace people who may get killed? (though, in many cases it's the way it works, in particular in poor countries it seems)
in the case of heart surgeon, as well as the skills, you can also consider the enormous pressure of being responsible for the life of your patients.
for the trash man, we could go as far as to consider how people are prejudiced against that kind of work. while the doctor is the image of success, the trash man often conveys the image of the loser who failed at life, and you could as well get a compensation for it.
Quote:
TALENT is luck based. It either is there, or not. Genetics aren't an answer since a lot of talented people came from completly pathological parents with no signs of talent at all. Of course you need to discover and develop it, but for Messi, it lead to Barcelona, for me trying to mimic him, it would lead nowhere.
no I'm not sure. sure you are following the same training and getting different results, but that doesn't mean it was determined from the start. you could have a physical advantage, but just be a mediocre player, while he would be far more creative than you.
actually, the determinant factor might be what your environment considers valuable. you might be born with some amazing aptitudes, but they aren't what the society is looking for. famous painters, for example, who died poor and unknown.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
no I'm not sure. sure you are following the same training and getting different results, but that doesn't mean it was determined from the start. you could have a physical advantage, but just be a mediocre player, while he would be far more creative than you.
and creativity comes from?
Hard work?  obviously not.
Another thing that we're born with. Bah.
Quote:
actually, the determinant factor might be what your environment considers valuable. you might be born with some amazing aptitudes, but they aren't what the society is looking for. famous painters, for example, who died poor and unknown.
That doesn't change the fact that, well, as you said - you might be born with some amazing aptitudes.
Or you can be born average. And there's nothing you can do to change it.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:07 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:14, 16 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Sure, they have a lot. The thing is pretty simple. Imagine me training football 8 hours per day, and imagine Lionel Messi training football 8 hours per day. We both have good coaches, we both are determined. In the end he's a star player of Barcelona, and I'm at best having fun for free in an amateur team of friends.
TALENT is luck based.
1) To find out what talents you have you have to try new stuff.
2) Talents are nurtured and developed. That takes EFFORT which may even be considered **gasp** WORK.
There have been plenty of examples of athletes who had natural talent and a poor work ethic whose accomplishments were surpassed by athletes with lesser natural talents who had a great work ethic.
Larry Bird did not have a lot of natural talent but he worked hard at his game and became a legend. Same for Pete Rose with baseball. They put in lots of work and it paid off for them.
The problem is a lot of people want to **WHINE** instead of **WORK**. They want it all but don't want to put in the effort to EARN it. Bird was not "lucky" that he was a great basketball player. He EARNED his status through lots of WORK.
If you don't who Bird is click here What do you see in his bio? Hustle. Hard work. The man would stay on the court after everyone left practicing. No, don't call him lucky.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:14 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 21:17, 16 Apr 2011.
|
This defeatism is sad... yeah talent may be luck based (that's not to say that people are all talentless some people are simply talented at stuff that doesn't make them billonairs) but with talent you become exceptional and outstanding if you work hard. If you "just" work hard and don't have the talent you'll simply be great at what you do.
What a terrible thought...
All this talk about talent...if I didn't know any better it'd sound an aweful lot like excuses.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) To find out what talents you have you have to try new stuff.
2) Talents are nurtured and developed. That takes EFFORT which may even be considered **gasp** WORK.
Who said they don't?
I merely said that without talent, you can work all your way till your neck breaks - without any serious effects.
Quote:
There have been plenty of examples of athletes who had natural talent and a poor work ethic whose accomplishments were surpassed by athletes with lesser natural talents who had a great work ethic.
There's also a ton of people that dedicated their life to training but because they lacked talent, they never ever achieved anything. I personally know a dozen such people, and you probably know such too.
Quote:
Larry Bird did not have a lot of natural talent but he worked hard at his game and became a legend. Same for Pete Rose with baseball. They put in lots of work and it paid off for them.
And what makes you think that he didn't have talent? lol sure he's a legend because of "hard work".
I'm laughing really hard now.
Quote:
The problem is a lot of people want to **WHINE** instead of **WORK**. They want it all but don't want to put in the effort to EARN it. Bird was not "lucky" that he was a great basketball player. He EARNED his status through lots of WORK.
Without talent, he at best would be a random ball passer in a low tier team.
Quote:
click here [/url] What do you see in his bio? Hustle. Hard work. The man would stay on the court after everyone left practicing. No, don't call him lucky.
Of course he did. Like Messi, like C.Ronaldo, like every professional athlete. You of course missed my point, but since you always do, it doesn't even surprise me.
Point was, that if a random person worked as much as them, without their talent, he/she would achieve pretty much nothing at all. Work is useless if there's no talent. You can praise your "hard" work as much as you can, if you're no good at something, you will at best be just average.
Elodin, no offense, but are you into BDSM or something? Most people don't like pain, exhaustion, boredom and diminishing health, all of those are connected to "hard work" but you seem to, idk, take some weird pleasure in it. Like, it elevates you to a superior human being. Because you WORK. Hard. Do you feel the same after a visit at dentist with no sedation? I know a person who feels better when he endures pain, it seems incredibly similar to your "I work hard" attitude. Sorry if it feels offensive.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 09:39 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Quote:
If economy is not a zero-sum system, that means it is either impossible to achive stagnation
It is impossible to achieve permanent stagnation, at least. It's possible to have temporary shrinkages, as businesses fail and people lose their jobs during recessions, but the overall trend is positive.
Quote:
Providing that the goverment is forced to actually spend everything it aquires, that means the taxed amount will get back into circulation.
It would, but that's not the same as it being invested. (Also, governments are spending more than they acquire. )
Quote:
We also have game theory and human psycology: If someone is going to take your money if you do not use it, then you will most likely invest that money into something.
Not if they take even more of your money if you invest it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2011 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and creativity comes from?
Hard work? obviously not.
Another thing that we're born with. Bah
I doubt it. well actually yes, I think we are all born with it. but the way we are educated makes us lose a more or less big part of that creativity, I think. because our education is quite limited.
I don't think genetics is the problem, unless you are born with some terrible disease, and even then, you probably still has some talents (I have a friend who is physically very weak because of a genetic disease, but he is still absolutely brilliant in sciences) it's more about how the environment allows you to discover what those talents are and give you the opportunity to develop them.
|
| |
|
|
