|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:56 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:00, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
What the hell are you on about with this cloning business? Just stop making some unrealistic "what if" situations.
The example's purpose was to ignore the damn "skill", "dedication" and "hard working" and thus PROVE that to become a millionaire you need waay more than that. If you have 100 clones of yourself then they are like you in intelligence, dedication, skill, etc... yet only a few can be musicians...
is that fair?
but I've always seen people when they can't provide any arguments against a particular example say "that's an unrealistic example" -- of course, I always try to prove my point to the extreme -- let's not let the background noise distract us from the subject at hand 
Quote:
With that last thing you quoted, what I meant to say was that there will always be somebody better than you for example: You might be the best at HOMM3, but then somebody might come along and then beat you and is much better than you. Then somebody might beat him and be better overall and then so on and so on. Hope that makes my point more clearer now.
There are a finite amount of people in this world. Who will come and beat the last one? 
That's like saying: 3 is greater than 2, 4 is greater than 3, 5 is greater than 4, but then there's no 6 (in this example), so 5 is the best
@mvass:Quote:
And even if you have all the opportunities in the world, you're not going to get anywhere unless you work hard.
I don't think so. What if I inherit some large corporation and then I hire other "poor" idiots to do the job for me? How much do I work exactly?
Let's put this in perspective: Bill Gates and John Doe are born in the wild. They both work hard for survival, and that's that. Right? Even though they will never be billionaires.
Now let's modify the scenario: John Doe is in the woods while Bill "inherits" a different world (the normal world for Bill Gates, as it happened). Then Bill becomes a billionaire and John Doe doesn't, even though John Doe put more effort (supposedly).
Now suppose John Doe is born instead of Bill and Bill is in the wild. John Doe makes the "MacroHard" company, and becomes a billionaire, while Bill struggles in the wild. Even though Bill is the same as before (in skill) he know does not have OPPORTUNITIES.
What has this got to do with hard-working I wonder? It is clear that none of the above changed except their freaking opportunities, in effect they should both be the same in skill & motivation & mentality -- but one thing is to WANT, and another one is to BE ABLE to. The latter is the one that dictates who becomes a billionaire, it's called opportunity.
That isn't fair no matter how you look at it, when they both exist at the same time of course.
Quote:
If I got a million dollars from a rich uncle, by itself wouldn't make me any more productive.
No but you own the damn corporation and so you take the profits, NOT the people that truly work.
Quote:
You can't blame that on capitalism. That's just the natural result of scarcity. If everyone wanted a mansion, and things were "fair", then no one would have a mansion. But I see it much more fair for some people to have mansions and others not to have them than to not let anyone have mansions.
No, it's more fair for everyone to have the same "average" house than for a select few to have mansions and the rest to have tents
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 01:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it's more fair for everyone to have the same "average" house than for a select few to have mansions and the rest to have tents
Do you think that people who collect welfare checks every month deserve to buy their on home? If so I think I should punch you lol. I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay for someone's house when they've never worked their entire life.
Please, address your thoughts on welfare. Welfare is abused and corrupt just as much as your big corporations.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 04:14 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
As I said, I'm undecided about inheritance. You raise a valid point about it. But even with an inheritance, you're going to have to look to find people to manage all of that for you, and aren't going to steal or squander it. That takes some work.
Quote:
No but you own the damn corporation and so you take the profits, NOT the people that truly work.
Consider, though, if you didn't get the money, then the corporation wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't have jobs at all. You think it's unfair for one to have a mansion and another to have a modest home? Ask the worker if he thinks it's fair that he can't get a job because you're stopping people from creating companies.
Quote:
No, it's more fair for everyone to have the same "average" house than for a select few to have mansions and the rest to have tents
How is it more fair? It's more equal, but it's not more fair.
Say I run in a race and I win 1st. But then you come along and tell me that there should be no winners and losers, and that it's unfair that I won. Sure, you're making things more equal. But equal =/= fair. Is it fair that 1 =/= 2? Equality is a concept that only truly has meaning in mathematics.
Oh, and since people are running in the race to get 1st, and you abolish 1st place, nobody is going to run. Think about that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 09:54 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 09:56, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
So this thread is based on something found at Youtube? OK people, next doctoral thesis you write, be sure to include Youtube as a reference. I'm sure your professor will think quite highly of your research technique. Don't forget to include the correct volume and time reference in your bibliography.
Oh no!!!! I just noticed that the video has "illuminati" as a keyword. Oh Noooooo, it's the Illuminatiiiii, whatever will we do? Run for the hills! Run for the Hills! Grab the fully automatic weapons and 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Take the night vision goggles, motion detectors, laser sights, camouflage clothing. Hurry and build the bunkers and stock them with 10 years of food. Make plans to blow the bridges to stop the hordes who will pour from the cities when the illuminati take over the world. Riots in the street! Race wars! Class wars! I'm scared, I'm oh so scared! The illuminati are here! Civilization as we know it will cease to exist!
Yea, yea, I've seen the bunkers, I've seen the weapons, the booby traps and the camouflage. I've been hearing about the Illuminati or the [insert your choice of conspiracy or secret society here], for 35 years. I've been around the far right extremist militia types. And I've been around the far left followers of Abby Hoffman. The extremist left are just as militant as the far right even though they pretend to be fighting for peace. And yea, the leftist peace-niks are armed too, and belligerent as hell.
Yip yip yippie! (google it if you're curious, but it doesn't describe it well and is very archaic)
Both sides tend to be ruled and driven by their own hatred and rebellion, even though they may claim some noble cause. And both sides are definitely paranoid and see conspiracies around every corner. It' amazing how many times I've heard that society was going to collapse in the next 3 years --- been hearing that for more than 35 years as well. By my calculations the world should have ended 1378 times during my lifetime. But I'm sure the conspiracy people have a rationalization explanation for why it hasn't happened yet.
Anyone else remember Jim Jones? Now that's the way to go. Thousands of people committing suicide rather than let the boogie man get them.
"HA! Take that you evil users and abusers of mankind, we all killed ourselves and you can't get us now. So There!"
Sounds perfectly logical to me.
I don't care for quote wars, but what the heck, a few quotes every now and then might be fun. Nothing personal of course, just having a little fun.
Quote:
Truth is, capitalisme never worked.
Huh? That's nothing but empty words that randomly came into your head. There's no basis whatsoever for that statement. I mean WOW, you made a statement. And it had an entire 5 words! I'm so impressed with your profound words and logical argument!!!
Del_diablo's argument was so convincing that Dargoth expanded on it...12 entire words! And look, what's that? Can it really be a comma? Now this is getting exciting and highly educational. Quote:
True, mercantilism and communism has been proven to be much more effective.
It's been proven? Source please? Yea, yea, I'm sure you can get on the internet and find some sort of so-called "proof". What do you want to bet that I can find "proof" for the exact opposite? What do you want to bet that I can find "proof" for just about ANYTHING?
Socialism is a nice idealism and can even work in practice....as long as you don't have more than a couple dozen people who happen to be like minded and get along well. (Yea, been to the communes too - they generally aren't armed and aren't paraniod either....far more enjoyable company than the militant rebels on the far left and right. )
Ah, this one is kind of nice, not sure why though.....it's just so, so innocentQuote:
in reality it is not socialism but decency that stops one from initiating violence.
Source?
And to address several posts. What the heck does the economic system have to do with corruption? Oh that's right, in a socialist system there aren't any greedy people, duh! Everyone in a socialist system is perfect. There are no greedy people. There are no criminals. There is no violence. There is no mafia. There is no alcoholism. There are no men beating their wives. It's such a perfect society by every measure. Oh, and let's not forget the rainbows and unicorns.....and would an angel playing a harp be too cliché?
I love this one.Quote:
Capitalism can work just fine if there weren't those greedy corporations
Ah, it's those evil corporations again. They should all be eliminated. First thing in the morning I'm gonna call the evil greedy corporation that I work for and tell them to Take This Job and Shove It. And while I'm at it, I'm gonna tell them to come take my food and my car and my house that I paid for with their evil greedy blood money. They can take all my other stuff too. I'll have nothing left, but at least I won't work for that damn greedy corporation any more. Wow, I feel so much better now that my conscience is clear.....getting kind of hungry though, but that'll pass with time.
Quote:
It's a fact. You do NOT earn money by being honest and decent.
It's a fact? Source? People sure like to throw that "fact" word around casually. And in this case the FACT is that this statement is simply not true.
BTW, if your statement is a "fact", then either A) you have absolutely no money or possessions, or B) you are yourself both dishonest and indecent. Which one is it, A or B?
Quote:
You don't have a clue how the world works.
WOW! RSF is SOOOO much more concise than me. But I so enjoy the sarcasm, I wouldn't want to say anything so straight forward and to the point.
Quote:
Yeah, Bill Gates worked and still works really hard -- let's compare him to some person who actually is working at MS now, a simple programmer that does all the job
You mean the 10,000 millionaires from Microsoft? Bad bad Microsoft *shakes a finger at them*, how dare they be so mean to their employees! How dare they turn away all those people who practically beg to work for that mean ol' company, for wages and experience well above average. All those poor oppressed programmers who have Microsoft on their resume and can now work for any company they want because of their great experience.
Oh my, look at how late it is. And I was having so much fun, but all fun things must come to an end.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 01:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And to address several posts. What the heck does the economic system have to do with corruption? Oh that's right, in a socialist system there aren't any greedy people, duh! Everyone in a socialist system is perfect. There are no greedy people. There are no criminals. There is no violence. There is no mafia. There is no alcoholism. There are no men beating their wives. It's such a perfect society by every measure. Oh, and let's not forget the rainbows and unicorns.....and would an angel playing a harp be too cliché?
Nah, its more that in capitalistic society would encourage to get rich. To get better, to get more people under yourself. And similar.
Its all about money, money, and luck. And when you fall your doomed.
People are going over you to earn money. If you stand alone you actually got a shot because nobody can backstab you(loans, similar, etc). But if you never get lucky enogh to be at the right places at the right times, you will never get a chance.
And when you become big, you will have people under you in a manner of way. No matter what you think, less if you run a 1-person show. But it still happens.
If you want to earn money, you need a oppertunity or somebody to leech/have under you.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 02:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you stand alone you actually got a shot because nobody can backstab you(loans, similar, etc).
You do realize that no one is forcing these people to take out loans, don't you?
Binabik:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 02:44 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:45, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
As I said, I'm undecided about inheritance. You raise a valid point about it. But even with an inheritance, you're going to have to look to find people to manage all of that for you, and aren't going to steal or squander it. That takes some work.
Nah, you'll just hire someone to find others for the job, I'm sure advertising isn't hard is it?
Quote:
Consider, though, if you didn't get the money, then the corporation wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't have jobs at all.
No, the corporation would exist, but not ruled by a capitalist, but ruled by the people, by all the workers (in a way, shared so to speak). They don't work for someone anymore, they work for each other.
Quote:
How is it more fair? It's more equal, but it's not more fair.
Say I run in a race and I win 1st. But then you come along and tell me that there should be no winners and losers, and that it's unfair that I won. Sure, you're making things more equal. But equal =/= fair. Is it fair that 1 =/= 2? Equality is a concept that only truly has meaning in mathematics.
Oh, and since people are running in the race to get 1st, and you abolish 1st place, nobody is going to run. Think about that.
You missed my point. Of course if he is slower than you, you'll beat him (let's say it's a running race) and become 1st. However, in real life it so often happens that not skill is the one that marks the difference between average joe and a billionaire (although of course BOTH need skills), it's the opportunity or luck or situation, i.e something which you don't deserve by your own will.
Suppose in the race example, that you outrun someone slower. You deserve to win right? Ok.
Now suppose the reality for capitalists: you clone yourself -- this is only to prevent any kind of "less skilled" or "slower" arguments. The two competitors, you and your clone, are the same right? Suppose you win, maybe because the 'land' in which he ran was a bit more harder and had a bit more friction. Do you deserve to win? Did you put more skill or effort? Nope, you just had a different situation (different land), which you did NOTHING to deserve.
This is what I call unfair. To put it simply: both the average joe and the billionaires need SKILLS. But what makes them so far apart? Situation, opportunities, luck... in short, something which they didn't WORK for, but were presented with. That's why it is unfair.
@Binabik: what was the purpose of your post? Exaggerated sarcasm? It added nothing constructive, you do realize that everyone, including me, can use the same manner of sarcasm? Fortunately it would be pointless so I don't have to worry to type it
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, you'll just hire someone to find others for the job, I'm sure advertising isn't hard is it?
Yeah, except half of the people who answer the ads would manage my money into their Nigerian bank accounts, given the chance. I'd have to work to filter those people out.
Quote:
No, the corporation would exist, but not ruled by a capitalist, but ruled by the people, by all the workers (in a way, shared so to speak).
How would that work?  Who would found the corporation? Who would be the one taking risks?
Quote:
The two competitors, you and your clone, are the same right? Suppose you win, maybe because the 'land' in which he ran was a bit more harder and had a bit more friction. Do you deserve to win?
Yes. But capitalism is different from a typical race in this instance. Let's say you and your clone are in a pie-baking competition, and whoever makes the most pies wins. Now say your clone's dough is tougher than yours, and so he takes longer making a pie, and loses. Do you deserve to win? Yes, because you made more pies. Period. It doesn't matter how or why - you were simply more productive.
Or look at the race example again. What if I beat the other guy just because I was lucky? What if I beat him because I had the opportunity to train all of my life? What about if we were on even ground? Does it really matter? I ran faster than he did, therefore I deserve to win.
Those who are more productive deserve to have more. Anything else is unfair.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Binabik: what was the purpose of your post? Exaggerated sarcasm? It added nothing constructive, you do realize that everyone, including me, can use the same manner of sarcasm? Fortunately it would be pointless so I don't have to worry to type it
Lol, I thought his post was good. you probably just don't see a point in it because you have nothing to counter it with.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 02:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it's more fair for everyone to have the same "average" house than for a select few to have mansions and the rest to have tents
In a football match one team won and was happy, and one lost and cried. Fair. One proved to play football better than other. Yet the result was fiercely unequal.
Since when equal = fair ?
How is that unfair when someone is more intelligent than another, or more charismatic or attractive? And why shouldn't some be richer or more influential? A society of clones is not what I dream for me and my descendants, thank you very much.
People should have the liberty to fail, otherwise they will be just spoiled, irresponsible kids for their whole lives.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How would that work? Who would found the corporation? Who would be the one taking risks?
It wouldn't be a corporation per se, but shared. That is, the name may not be there, but the things it has/owns are, only that it isn't owned by ONE big capitalist (or several).
Quote:
Yes. But capitalism is different from a typical race in this instance. Let's say you and your clone are in a pie-baking competition, and whoever makes the most pies wins. Now say your clone's dough is tougher than yours, and so he takes longer making a pie, and loses. Do you deserve to win? Yes, because you made more pies. Period. It doesn't matter how or why - you were simply more productive.
And? What has this got to do with hard-working?
My original intent was to show that it has NOTHING to do with hard-working. A businessman might work hard, but this is NOT WHAT MAKES HIM A BILLIONAIRE. Average joe works just as hard. Period. Logical deduction: something else is responsible for 'richness'.
Quote:
Or look at the race example again. What if I beat the other guy just because I was lucky? What if I beat him because I had the opportunity to train all of my life? What about if we were on even ground? Does it really matter? I ran faster than he did, therefore I deserve to win.
Yes it matters because that's EXACTLY what constitutes unfairness. What about education? Free education for all? Why, because they aren't born in a situation where they can learn? Why make exceptions?
Simply put: if WHAT GIVE YOU THE WIN is OUT of your own will (that is, not skill, dedication, hard-work, etc...) then you don't deserve it any more than someone else does. Period. It's nothing you have done, you just had the opportunity.
That said, it's like lottery. If someone wins, do you think he deserves the money more than someone who works hard? If this is not unfair then I don't know what is.
If it's something that you are presented with WITHOUT your own will (luck/opportunity), while someone else who has THE SAME WILL (thus skills, hard working, dedication, etc) DOES NOT have it, then it is unfair. Period. After all, what did he do to deserve less? He has the same thoughts as you -- it's not his fault he is in a different situation. And it's not your work that you won at the lottery. You have absolutely no basis to claim that you are 'better' or 'work harder' than someone with less money. You haven't done anything, you're just a spoiled brat (in this example) compared to him and you DARE to say that HARD WORK (and skill and whatever) is the secret to this? Get real.
In short: you can't become a billionaire if you want to, no matter how much effort and skill you put. You can only become if you are presented with enough opportunities -- and that happens OUTSIDE YOUR WILL, therefore it is NOT YOUR MAKING. Something that is not your making means you don't deserve it any more than someone else.
Quote:
Lol, I thought his post was good. you probably just don't see a point in it because you have nothing to counter it with.
Tell you what: not gonna get into a childish debate.
Here's the short counter: Binabik said YouTube is not reliable right? Well "OMG Binabik has spoken, the truth has been unleashed  " [/sarcasm].
please...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In a football match one team won and was happy, and one lost and cried. Fair. One proved to play football better than other. Yet the result was fiercely unequal.
Since when equal = fair ?
How many times must I say this? Take an example with identical teams. Suppose you cloned all the members for the other team.
What now? Do the ones who win still deserve to win, even though you (as a God) know that they both have the same skill? The only difference is luck.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It wouldn't be a corporation per se, but shared. That is, the name may not be there, but the things it has/owns are, only that it isn't owned by ONE big capitalist (or several).
Okay, but that doesn't answer either of my questions.
Quote:
My original intent was to show that it has NOTHING to do with hard-working. A businessman might work hard, but this is NOT WHAT MAKES HIM A BILLIONAIRE. Average joe works just as hard. Period. Logical deduction: something else is responsible for 'richness'.
It does have something to do with being HARD-WORKING. I'd like you to show me a billionaire (one that didn't inherit most of their money) that didn't work hard. You see, it's like this:
hard work + opportunity + luck = billionaire
hard work + opportunity = semi-rich
hard work = decent amount of money
opportunity + luck = nothing
opportunity = nothing
luck = nothing
It takes luck to become a billionaire, but luck by itself has never made anybody a billionaire. And, to me, it doesn't matter anyway. Productivity, not hard work, is what matters in the end.
Quote:
What about education? Free education for all? Why, because they aren't born in a situation where they can learn? Why make exceptions?
It's not an exception. It's utilitarian. If you educate everybody, then rich and poor alike are going to be better off. Not so if you don't let the rich employ the poor.
Quote:
That said, it's like lottery. If someone wins, do you think he deserves the money more than someone who works hard?
Yes, because he took a risk, and it paid off.
Quote:
After all, what did he do to deserve less? He has the same thoughts as you -- it's not his fault he is in a different situation.
It's not my fault that he is in a different situation, either. Why should I be punished for it?
And besides, while not everyone can be a billionaire, everyone has the tools to make it to a good standard of living, at least in America. We have free public education (although it can be improved). We have numerous need-based scholarships. People can afford to get an education. And when they have their education, it doesn't matter if their parents are rich or poor, they're more or less equally skilled.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
I'm more of a centrist, I favor neither too much capitalism nor too much socialism. Both have their good and bad parts, and I'd like a system where the good parts of both are placed together, even though at a lesser degree, but have no bad parts in the process.
Death, you do have a point with the opportunities being unfair at times, and I agree that some rich people got their money easily either from inheritance or lots of luck and not much work. However, there are also people who indeed work harder than others, not everyone is 'an angel' and willing to work. In fact there are many people lazy out there, and the problem is that those would receive too much money compared to those who really work hard (in your system)
So as you can see, both have bad parts. On one hand capitalism encourages those rich people who abuse their own 'power', and probably stealing others' chances at creating their own company, while socialism encourages the people to be more lazy (overall, not all of them will be lazier), since those that are actually indeed lazy receive lots of money, unlike in capitalism where you have to really work for your money (unless you are born rich or some luck hits you and you get lots of money from somewhere or somehow - in this case capitalism is even worse (for you, not for everybody) than socialism, since you'll probably be lazy for the rest of your life)
Though I have to agree, there are some 'good' millionaires out there as well, Bill Gates being one of them. Not only he puts a lot money for charity, but I also heard he won't give much money to his children, so that they won't be spoiled and irresponsible because they have a lot of money to abuse.
Now, what would I like? Probably a system where the rich can't get too rich (and I don't call someone with a couple million dollars really 'rich'), but where people should work for their own money. It's more like a capitalism system where monopoly is not allowed at all (hmm, actually it's something more than monopoly: the market shouldn't be dominated by some corporations, no matter how many there are (in monopoly I take it it's only one big corporation?), so that everyone has a chance to create his/her own company in this competition, if (s)he puts lots of effort and work into it, of course. Take for example the CPU industry: it's not a monopoly, since there are TWO great companies: AMD and Intel. (Or is it a monopoly? I'm not sure about the definition of monopoly  ) However, it is problematic for 'newcomers' to create their own company, and this is what in my system I'd like to avoid)
I'm not sure if that's called a 'centrist' though. In capitalism skill matters, but so does luck and opportunity. In socialism, skill matters but a lot less, but luck doesn't matter at all. I'd like somewhere between these, where the skill is as high as possible while the luck as low as possible.
Not going to enter any quote wars or heated argues though, I just shared my opinion.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It does have something to do with being HARD-WORKING. I'd like you to show me a billionaire (one that didn't inherit most of their money) that didn't work hard. You see, it's like this:
hard work + opportunity + luck = billionaire
hard work + opportunity = semi-rich
hard work = decent amount of money
opportunity + luck = nothing
opportunity = nothing
luck = nothing
You have flawed logic or reasoning. For example, I think you are aware that in a sum (like above), the factor that doesn't change on all equations, yet the output is different, means that it is NOT what changes the output? In this case, the hard work is NOT RESPONSIBLE for you being rich, since an average joe has it as well.
To exemplify this, add another term to ALL equations called "breathing" -- surely you will need it in order to survive right? That doesn't mean it is the factor that changes the output, which is what we're interested in. When you analyze data and want to know WHICH coefficient/factor changes the output, you take those that are DIFFERENT in the different equations, not those that are the same everywhere (such as hard working). With logic, we can rule out hard working as the factor that changes average joe into a billionaire.
Quote:
It's not an exception. It's utilitarian. If you educate everybody, then rich and poor alike are going to be better off. Not so if you don't let the rich employ the poor.
How do you know? Guess?
Quote:
Yes, because he took a risk, and it paid off.
No I mean compared to people who also took a similar risk doh.
Quote:
It's not my fault that he is in a different situation, either. Why should I be punished for it?
Because we should be evolved to understand those with worse situations, not being their fault. Or because we would seek fairness?
Suppose the scenario in which you are a dumb guy but inherit a fortune, and some skilled guy who is in born in poverty. Fair? I think not, but life isn't fair -- we can change that however, so it's not just "life's unfair, get over it" but rather "life's unfair and I don't want to make it any more fair, k?".
Quote:
And when they have their education, it doesn't matter if their parents are rich or poor, they're more or less equally skilled.
Like I said countless times, skill is not what makes the difference between an average joe and a billionaire. How many times must I explain that?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 03:46 PM |
|
|
This is a short post to help your eyes recover.
Have a nice day.
____________
"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
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How many times must I say this? Take an example with identical teams. Suppose you cloned all the members for the other team.
What now? Do the ones who win still deserve to win, even though you (as a God) know that they both have the same skill? The only difference is luck.
If one of those identical team, identically trained etc. won, it would be because of their better ideas on the pitch, because of their better use of their skills, in addition to luck. Yes, in addition. How is it unfair to be more lucky than another? If me and you agree to toss a coin, and the loser pays $100 to the winner, should I cry 'it's so unfair!' when I lose? I would see no problem with paying you these $100.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 04:28 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 16:42, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Capitolism gives people that chance to have a mansion. That chance to have the mansion is what motivates people to strive for success. If you continue to give the "less fortunate" money and benefits, they won't work hard to better themselves.
That's nothing but a retarded dogma pushed through by Capitalism for ignorants to believe.
Einstein didn't gain ANYTHING from his research, yet he is recognized as one of the most influential people in human history. He did it because he had a PASSION for it, not because he wanted to gain wealth with it or anything.
Your dogma is untrue and stupid.
You do not need a prospect of wealth to be motivated to work hard. You only need a good education to uncover your passions.
Quote:
So this thread is based on something found at Youtube? OK people, next doctoral thesis you write, be sure to include Youtube as a reference. I'm sure your professor will think quite highly of your research technique. Don't forget to include the correct volume and time reference in your bibliography.
No I did not find this on youtube. I knew the guy and I simply found that the video had been posted on youtube, so I linked it via there. But it's nice to see you still make assumptions, take them for truth, and act high n mighty over them. You're awesome!
Quote:
Oh no!!!! I just noticed that the video has "illuminati" as a keyword. Oh Noooooo, it's the Illuminatiiiii, whatever will we do? Run for the hills! Run for the Hills! Grab the fully automatic weapons and 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Take the night vision goggles, motion detectors, laser sights, camouflage clothing. Hurry and build the bunkers and stock them with 10 years of food. Make plans to blow the bridges to stop the hordes who will pour from the cities when the illuminati take over the world. Riots in the street! Race wars! Class wars! I'm scared, I'm oh so scared! The illuminati are here! Civilization as we know it will cease to exist!
Kindergarten is that way --->
Quote:
Quote:
It's a fact. You do NOT earn money by being honest and decent.
It's a fact? Source? People sure like to throw that "fact" word around casually. And in this case the FACT is that this statement is simply not true.
BTW, if your statement is a "fact", then either A) you have absolutely no money or possessions, or B) you are yourself both dishonest and indecent. Which one is it, A or B?
It's a simple thing called common sense. If you own a store and tell your customer honestly that the products sold next door are of better quality, you wouldn't be in business. Take a fricking look at the television and watch the lies and bullsnow they spam about their products, called "commercials". Advertising is one grand example of just what dishonest and pathetic behavior it calls for.
"We provide the BEST loans that will NOT AT ALL snow up and dominate your entire life" "No WE have the best loans!"
Obviously AT LEAST one is lying...
And I have the fortune of living in a country that has social security. Which enables me to keep myself alive and capable of rolling into a college opcoming year. Had I lived in a country like the USA, I wouldn't have had that chance.
Social security is not meant for people to leech on. It's to provide people a minimal basis from which they can climb up again. America seems to prefer the bottomless pit that lets people fall and unable to climb out from again.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It does have something to do with being HARD-WORKING. I'd like you to show me a billionaire (one that didn't inherit most of their money) that didn't work hard. You see, it's like this:
hard work + opportunity + luck = billionaire
hard work + opportunity = semi-rich
hard work = decent amount of money
opportunity + luck = nothing
opportunity = nothing
luck = nothing[/quote
Wrong:
Hard work means you earn a bit more money than Joe, if you add together enogh hours of work you may only get the "decent amount" as you put it.
Lets say Bill works, but Joe works hard. They both earn X a hour, and ther overtime wage is 80% more than the regular hour. Bill and Joe works Y hours of normal wage. But Joe works Z hours overtime while Bill just works A.
Z>A
X*Y+Z*(X*1.8)= Joes payout
X*Y+A*(X*1.8)= Bills payout
Now lets say someting random happened to Bill so he gets a better job, its luck aka opportunity. He now earns A. A=X*3
Because of the new payout he do no longer work overtime. But he still works as many regular hours as before.
Now Bill earns more than Joe because of luck.
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 04:58 PM |
|
|
Actually you could have disproven that much more easily:
Luck + Lottery = Instantly very rich.
____________
|
| |
|
|
