|
| Thread: the disparity of wealth |  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 October 28, 2010 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not the frequency, but the sole fact that it DID happen. Even if it was a single person on the planet, it would be STILL unfair.
What I don't understand is why you care so much about outliers. Yeah, so some people are really lucky and got born into wealth. So what? Why lose sleep over it. Is it unfair that some people are born with congenital heart malformations? Some people win the lottery or win it big at casinos and I never have. Is that fair? Shall I throw up my hands and curse the gods for such injustice? Well, I suppose if I was the only one who did NOT win the lottery, then perhaps I could see the reason for being bitter about it. But the fact of the matter is that most people don’t win the lottery. Most people aren’t born rich. And most people don’t have congenital heart malformations. So while I recognize that it sure would be nice to be rich without having to work for it, I understand that the vast majority of people do and that I certainly could be a lot worse off than I am.
Then again, perhaps I just don’t understand what your meaning of “fair” is, so I’ll wait for your response to my earlier post before writing anything else.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2010 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I don't understand is why you care so much about outliers. Yeah, so some people are really lucky and got born into wealth. So what? Why lose sleep over it.
Do I? I merely state it's unfair. It's not like I'm pulling my hair every night and losing sleep because of it.
Quote:
Is it unfair that some people are born with congenital heart malformations? Some people win the lottery or win it big at casinos and I never have. Is that fair?
Nope. They get a big reward for no effort.
Quote:
Shall I throw up my hands and curse the gods for such injustice?
No. What's stoping you from acknowledging one, though? I don't understand why does it automatically must mean I'm spiteful, jealous or whatever. Stating the fact is pretty, well, emotionless 
Quote:
So while I recognize that it sure would be nice to be rich without having to work for it, I understand that the vast majority of people do and that I certainly could be a lot worse off than I am.
Which is nice and all, but again, stating the fact doesn't mean you must feel the most miserable being on the planet.
Quote:
Then again, perhaps I just don’t understand what your meaning of “fair” is, so I’ll wait for your response to my earlier post before writing anything else.
I'll write it up soon - it's going to be a bigger one, so it will take some minutes 
Sorry for lotsa quotes - did it first and thought that quoting like that sucks later. My bad.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2010 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not so. Talent is nothing without "hard work" - but not every talent will make you rich and famous.
sure, making lots of money is probably often more important than having a real talent.
there is also an easier and quicker way to be rich : cheating 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 01:24 AM |
|
|
@Doomforge
Quote:
No, I don't mean a sample, I don't mean any conclusion and I care only about single, individual event. I only mean that seeing such a person is highly discouraging from doing anything, and it doesn't matter one tiny bit whether it happens 1% or 0.000000000000000001% of the time to me - who cares how often it happens? It's not the frequency, but the sole fact that it DID happen. Even if it was a single person on the planet, it would be STILL unfair.
No, it is not the least bit unfair for Daddy (who worked hard to make his fortune) to buy his son a 200,000 car and you can't afford one.
What is unfair is to demand the government steal money from the father so it can "give" the money to you so you can buy the same car the father bought for his son. It is absolutely fair for me to give whatever I want to to my children even if 99.999999% of the all the people in the world could never afford to buy the gift.
The fact that is is possible to be more prosperous by working harder/longer/more hours/additional jobs/investing/ect should be a motivating factor. But some people just are not willing to put more effort into getting what they desire to have. They want others to work hard and to be forced to provide their wants.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 02:24, 29 Oct 2010.
|
Hm... somewhat similar to how I think but slightly off. Here's my modified version.
Quote:
It is unfair for Daddy (who worked hard to make his fortune) to buy his son a 200,000 car and the daddy who works 88 hours a week at the best paying job his town has in Upthecreekistan can't afford one, however it is also not only unfair to demand the government steal money from the father so it can "give" the money to you so you can buy the same car the father bought for his son, but unethical/immoral in this case. The world sucks. Don't let it bother you too much, deal with it or develop mental problems. Your choice.
Cars are nice, but they are not necessities (at least, not anything above dirtbox level). It's fine for the government to charge a small bit of tax for a family on hard times to live in a terrible, dirty house or apartment that they would then be motivated work hard to get out of living in. As long as the money goes to the right people's needs and it's spend on bettering the lives of the children involved, it's not wasted. Wasted money is when greedy people abuse the system, actively avoiding getting jobs and not doing their part to show they actually need the money.
Seriously, I just think (as mentioned before in a different thread) each government agency should be audited, spending accounts should not exist for government employees except emergency situations and any person, company or entity abusing or stealing from our tax dollars should be severely punished. Of course, doing so to be honest would probably make every politician inexistence be eligible for jail time/fines am I right?
Quote:
The fact that is is possible to be more prosperous by working harder/longer/more hours/additional jobs/investing/ect should be a motivating factor.
It is here. I would work more but I have nobody to look after my kids but me and my husband when he's home. My parents are very old, my father is old enough to be my grandfather, he is crippled from having his stroke, he's not able to do anything. My mother is not nearly that old, but she is worked to the bone. My oldest brother made the mistake of marrying a person with a serious disability. She was nearly blind to begin with, but when she gave birth 2 things happened. She lost nearly all of hr sight and she developed a second split personality (which apparently runs in her family. The creepy thing is that the evil her could see fine). They split up pretty quickly, my brother was stuck with his son and he just gave him to my mom. Not that she wasn't already looking after him every day anyway. Children shouldn't be forced on grandparents in my opinion, they should have the option to give the child back to the parent if they need a break. My husband's parents split up. His dad despite having an 80,000$ per year job as a high end government accountant squandered his money or embezzled it into secret savings, meanwhile he also took out his home's equity in loan money and spend his wife's inheritance from when her mom died. He claimed that he never stopped being a teenager and now spends most of his time living in the US (it's surprisingly cheaper to rent a whole furnished beach house with all amenities in/just outside of Florida than it is to rent a junky apartment here) with his American family (he is descended from the Adams branch of founders, remember). My husband's mom is stuck with the house, the debt and has to work 3 minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. She doesn't have the time for the kids.
My husband works very hard and puts in a lot of extra unpaid hours so the company he supports doesn't lose clients due to SLA times worsening lately (many more issues it seems, air conditioners breaking in server rooms and stuff down south etc). The reason being is because he's already been laid off twice in the last 2 years despite working hard and being one of the best (and most awarded) employees at his workplaces. In his line of work however, he cannot work another job because of multiple reasons. For one, in his job if he makes a mistake, a company can lose 10,000$ worth of business easily plus thousands in paid out wages to people unable to do anything. Another thing, and I think this is a very important one, he needs to help me whenever possible with the babies. It's been over a month and the huge cut on my chest is still bleeding. I can't hold my own son who isn't even 1 and a half yet, yet I have to because he's still a baby and needs it sometimes. I went to the doctor's on Tuesday and they burned it shut and it's still bleeding.
Under a normal economy when things are booming and you're in a well off country yes, there is nothing to stop you from improving yourself through harder work. But things aren't booming right now. Not since 2008. My husband has to work harder just to stop things from getting _worse_ but can't to make things better. Once the recession actually ends (not just what the government says) I could see it happening.
I forgot to mention before also, my husband between having a real job did do multiple minimum wage jobs simultaneously. But we could not afford anything beyond house, insurance, hydro and food paymenmts.
Quote:
But some people just are not willing to put more effort into getting what they desire to have. They want others to work hard and to be forced to provide their wants.
Those people could all be weeded out with proper management. Nobody should live off the fruit of another. We all have to earn our place in society, so if you're getting government assistance, you have to show you're working for it. (Like my husband, who when applying for assistance to go back to school showed that he applied for over one hundred jobs in his field). My family didn't just take and not give anything back, we did our best. I do see people who don't and it makes me, disappointed at best, angry at worst. But they do get caught eventually.
Edit:
Back to the real topic at hand again.
Yes, it's not fair for 5% of the people to control 90% of the wealth but that's life. We have to learn to live with it or choke on it.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 08:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Back to the real topic at hand again.
Yes, it's not fair for 5% of the people to control 90% of the wealth but that's life. We have to learn to live with it or choke on it.
Oh no, not so. If you think about it - and I tried to communicate this - humanity ALWAYS, always strives to struggle againt unfairness or bad luck. It's in the nature of trying to heal illnesses, find ways to alter genetic defects, develop methods to change looks, improve things and so on.
That is not different with ownership of things. Feudalism has been overcome as a system of unfairness as well, as have been others. No, we do not have to learn to live with it - we can try to change things.
For example, it is long known, that people work better and harder, if they directly participate from business success. Giving worker "shares" of a company MOTIVATES people. It is not only FAIR to let workers participate in the success of a company, it helps lowering costs (people work more efficient and are less sick) as well.
As opposed to what others are saying - if a company makes one hell of a lot of money, but pays their workers minimum wages, then it is completely CORRECT, when workers are NOT giving their best. They are paid to do what they are told, they are not paid to do their best and hardest. Or, in other words - if the company's first and foremost interest is PROFIT to maximize the wealth of shareholders and owners (leaving the interest of the workers out) then it is correct, if the workers are thinking first and foremost about THEIR interests and not the company's. After all, no matter how hard you try, you are always prone to being rationalized away, so what?
Companies MUST realize that the only way to go is to let workers participate in economic success.
Look at the service sector of business. A lot of the money earned there is made via tips. What is a tip? A tip is a gratification for a job WELL DONE. If you are unfriendly or botch it - no or small tip. If you are attentive and pleasant - good tip. Most restaurants have rules in place that the tip will be collected and divided, so that cooks and serving persons serving the more unattractive tables participate as well. In such restaurants, if there ARE persons who generally have an attitude that lessens tips, the others will make their displeasure felt.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 10:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, it's not fair for 5% of the people to control 90% of the wealth
I don't have time to go into detail, but it seems like every time I say that I end up writing a book. But I'll try to keep it short and just get the thought going in the right direction.
Basically that statement isn't true. At least not in the way people think. I don't know if those numbers are accurate but you hear stuff like this a lot and the actual numbers aren't important for my point.
The short version is that I say it's not true because you are comparing apples to oranges. The implication of those numbers, and what people picture, is a small group of people who own everything, as if the average person is just some little worthless bug. But as I said it's comparing apple to oranges.
The easiest and fastest way to explain is to just give an example. When you measure the "net worth" of the average person like me, you are not measuring the same thing as when you measure the "net worth" of someone like Bill Gates.
The first thing to point out is the common misconception that when you hear things like Bill Gates is worth $60B that it means he has $60B. Bill Gates does NOT have $60B. And he can't get it. He can't get anywhere near that much money.
When you measure the worth of someone like me you would add up my money, the value of my car and house and things that I own. You add up all that stuff and come up with a net worth.
With Bill Gates, most of his "worth" is in stock. The value of stock is the PERCEIVED POTENTIAL for that company to make money. It's not anything solid and concrete, it's nothing more than a belief in the future. If the people who buy the stock don't think that Microsoft can make money the price would plummet to near zero.
This perceived potential for future profits is very real and has real value. However the important point is that when you look at the net worth of someone like Gates you are largely looking at perceived future potential. But when you look at the net worth of someone like me you do not measure my future potential. I have future potential just like a company does, but it's not measured. As I gain experience at a job, my potential future earnings increase but my net worth does not. If I get a degree at the university my potential earnings increase but my net worth does not.
My own net worth is only the stuff that I have right now. The net worth of Bill Gates is the stuff he has right now PLUS the perceived potential of the stock he owns. With someone like Gates the majority of his net worth falls into the second category.
Let me make another illustration. Let's say there is a company named Coca Cola that it's one of the most recognized brands in the world. Now an alien from space comes along and sucks up everything that Coca Cola owns and flies off with it never to be seen again. It sucks up Coke's money, it's factories, it's machinery, trucks, desks, computers, employees, managers and even it's advertising agencies. It sucks up EVERYTHING until there is nothing left except a word. The word is Coke.
Now what if I happen to own that word? What do I have? I still have my house and car and computer, CDs, and about 75ml of wine that I left in the bottle last night. Oh yea, I almost forgot, I also have four letters C, O, K, E.
So what is my net worth? The way my personal net worth is normally measured those four letters are nothing. I would be worth the same amount that I was before. But if you measure my net worth the way it's measured for Bill Gates, I would be worth a freaking fortune. Yet the only new thing I have is four letters. My house would be the same, my old car would be the same, I still wouldn't be able to afford the nice vacation I'd like to take, but I would be considered one of the richest people in the world.
Hmmm, I wonder if I could sell those four letters to Bill Gates. Nah, he couldn't afford it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 10:54 AM |
|
|
Binabik, you are dead wrong, plain and simple. Because YOU are the one who are measuring the two things dfferently.
EVERYTHING undis measured in potential. Money, for example has no worth as such - you can't eat it, snow it, and so on. However, POTENTIALLY it's worth a lot.
Same with, say, a car. It has POTENTIAL. It can bring you somewhere - in an enjoyable way, even; it may help you transporting stuff.
Even more GENERALLY expressed, what people OWN or CONTROL can be measured in the amount or potential of POWER to influence the "course of things", for YOU, and, of course, for other people.
So when 5% of the people own 90% of the wealth it means, that 5% of the people own 90% of the combined power potential to influence the course of things.
See that? The problem isn't the fact that a guy like Bill Gates can buy a nice home and put a TV in every room - that his private style of living may be luxurious. The problem is that he can use his enormous power potential to influence the course of things the way he wants. And as opposed to politicians who do the same thing because people "lend" them their power to accumulate it and wield it, Gates and the others can wield theirs without any necessity of justifying their actions.
In theory, the power people lend politicians is supposed to be used to limit the power of the rich and wealthy to what is "legal". In practise their power allows them to greatly influence what IS "legal".
Most people's potential to influence the course of others is EXTREMELY limited - and most of it would be desperately destructive and illegal. There is a difference in buying a company, tear it apart, sell the parts, fire the workers and keep only a small most profitable part to integrate it into your empire and simply burn the place down or explode it.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 01:10 PM |
|
|
No, what I said is right.
When you measure the net worth of Bill Gates you measure things that you do not measure when you calculate the net worth of yourself.
To again use the example of getting a university degree. If I get a degree it does not increase my net worth. If Bill Gates gets a degree it would not increase his net worth either. But if Microsoft got the equivalent of a degree, it would increase it's net worth. In all three cases it would increase the value in terms of potential earning power, but only with Microsoft is it actually measured.
It's somewhat true that my money only has "potential" to buy something more tangible. However my own potential to earn money in the future is not calculated into my net worth. The only thing that's calculated is what I have right now. The fact that I can go out tomorrow and earn some money does not count. It only counts AFTER I actually do it and put the money in the bank. In the case of Microsoft, the fact that it can go out tomorrow and earn money IS calculated into it's net worth.
Whether it's Bill Gates or me or you or anyone else, our personal net worth does not include whatever power/influence/potential that we may have as individuals. Those things are included in stock prices, but not individual net worth.
That's not saying that you CAN'T attempt to measure some of those intangibles for an individual. It's just saying that's not the way it's done when you calculate net worth. If you were to somehow try to define and measure those things for individuals, you would come up with very different numbers than the 5% and 95% figures. And I wouldn't want to attempt to guess what those numbers would be, I don't even know how to define something like that.
In the case of stocks, there isn't any kind of solid definition for how price is determined. It's totally at the whim of a fickle and reactionary market. The net worth of Microsoft, and by extension the net worth of Bill Gates can literally go up or down because it's a crappy rainy day. A rainy day would not change my personal net worth, but it can change the net worth of Gates. That's because it's measured differently.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 01:41 PM |
|
|
Binabik, you have a completely twisted view that has nothing to do with reality:
Quote:
It's somewhat true that my money only has "potential" to buy something more tangible. However my own potential to earn money in the future is not calculated into my net worth. The only thing that's calculated is what I have right now. The fact that I can go out tomorrow and earn some money does not count. It only counts AFTER I actually do it and put the money in the bank. In the case of Microsoft, the fact that it can go out tomorrow and earn money IS calculated into it's net worth.
We are NOT talking about Microsoft here, because Microsoft is no person. Microsoft has no life of its own - it's controlled by it's board of directors, CEOs and shareholders. We are talking about persons only. The fact that you can go out tomorrow and earn money doesn't count, because it's true for everyone. EVERYONE can do that, Bill Gates, you, me, anyone, and in addition to everything earned already. It's of no relevance, since everyone can - potentially - die as well tomorrow.
Quote:
Whether it's Bill Gates or me or you or anyone else, our personal net worth does not include whatever power/influence/potential that we may have as individuals. Those things are included in stock prices, but not individual net worth.
The power we have as individuals is irrelevant, except if it allows getting wealthy. If you are a pretty girl who uses her looks to make money, she uses her talents to better her position. Bill Gates used his individual talents and powers as well, ultimately ending with an empire. In the end it amounts only to the question of how the individual powers are used to control and influence the life of others, and here we are back again at the point where we started.
Quote:
That's not saying that you CAN'T attempt to measure some of those intangibles for an individual. It's just saying that's not the way it's done when you calculate net worth. If you were to somehow try to define and measure those things for individuals, you would come up with very different numbers than the 5% and 95% figures. And I wouldn't want to attempt to guess what those numbers would be, I don't even know how to define something like that.
Which means that this is just clouding the issue.
Quote:
In the case of stocks, there isn't any kind of solid definition for how price is determined. It's totally at the whim of a fickle and reactionary market. The net worth of Microsoft, and by extension the net worth of Bill Gates can literally go up or down because it's a crappy rainy day. A rainy day would not change my personal net worth, but it can change the net worth of Gates. That's because it's measured differently.
Irrelevant for the matter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 03:13 PM |
|
|
I just wanted to say: "Nice posts, Bin." And dead on target, too. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 04:19 PM |
|
|
And as wrong as they can be.
5% of the people own 90% of the wealth, that has nothing to do with MONEY. Money is used only to measure it. But it has a reason, that people like Bill Gates do not have 60 billion in cash on a score or two of accounts around the world.
If Bill Gates needs a billion or two - he can just LEND it, if he doesn't want to sell anything he owns. However, what he owns is what matters, not what the stuff he owns would be worth if he sold it.
See it this way - if 5% of the population own 90% of EVERYTHING (while the other 95% share the remaining 10%), the actual, daily worth of one corp compared with the other is completely irrelevant, because the ratio between those who have and those who have not will keep the same and will even get worse, as time shows.
Whether Bill Gates loses out his first place, since Microsoft lost share value, while another corp gained and someone else overtook him doesn't change anything.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 09:19 PM |
|
|
Doomforge, I'd like to point out a minor but very relevant detail in your position.
You say that it is unfair to the majority of people that work for financial stability that a few people receive wealth without extraordinary effort or innovation, but it is not unfair for them. Receiving tangible rewards in the form of a paycheck and other perks relative to what you produce through your work is perfectly fair.
It is not that the average working person is being ripped-off, but merely that a small slice of people are lucky. The way you are looking at it is unduly pessimistic.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 10:19 PM |
|
|
Luck is unfair to those unlucky. Which also happen to be the majority
I'd dare to compare it to a badly balanced game. Programists fix glitches, abuses and overpowered features to give gamers an equal ground. Obtaining a weapon that does 9999 dam per hit because the game glitched and dumped it onto you while everybody else runs around with 10 dam pistol will seem unfair (to them, you will most likely not care) and undeserved, won't it?
Just like getting a ton of money from an overly rich daddy
Also, stating in such game that it's a glitch and shouldn't happen doesn't automatically mean you don't enjoy the game, or refuse to play it because of the glitch, right?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 10:27 PM |
|
|
They're not unlucky.
Unlucky is receiving compensation that is less than what you produce through your work (whether it be producing goods, services, knowledge, or whatever). Ching Chang Chong, age 6, in northern Myanmar is unlucky. The average worker is not unlucky.
If I agree to give you a young goat in exchange for working in my fields for a week - which let's say is reasonable compensation for your labor - then you have received a fair deal. If the next guy to work in my fields for a week also gets a young goat but then I also give him a camel and my youngest daughter because I'm drunk at the time and feeling oddly generous, then he was lucky, but it does not in anyway mean that you are somehow unlucky. You merely got what was mutually agreed upon.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 01:04 AM |
|
|
I don't really understand all those people saying you've got to work hard. are we just supposed to all be working machines?
there is something between not working at all and working the hardest we can, you know.
and I don't see how working your best at a coca-cola factory, in a hotline or making expensive clothing in india for example is really beneficial to yourself and others.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 01:49 AM |
|
|
Fauch, it's not binary It's not a matter of either working your ass off or not working at all. It's not about getting rich or being poor.
(ignoring the cherry pickers) It's a matter than on average, working 3 hours per week gets you more than working 2 hours per week. Working 50 hours per week gets you more than working 40 hours per week. And working 100 hours per week gets you more than working 90 hours per week.
If you don't want to work hard, that's fine. I like working, but I don't like working a lot of hours either. But if you don't want to work hard then don't complain that someone who DOES work hard and has things that you don't.
And yes, I understand that somebody might not be able to find a job. However there are people who come right out and say they don't WANT to work hard, and still complain about not having things.
Also, there is a lot more to it than working a bunch of hours. There are all kinds of things you can do to increase the amount of money you can make. Research is a good place to start. Take the time to learn what kind of jobs are out there and which ones you might like, how much the jobs pay, what kind of training or education is involved, getting that training or education, meeting people who know people who know someone who might be hiring, learning to do a good job interview. There are all kinds of things you can do to help increase your chances of making more money. It's a combination of a lot of different things along with actually working hard that makes a difference.
If you don't want to do those kinds of things that's fine. Just don't complain when someone else does.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 02:14 AM |
|
|
As I found out during my job search, looking for a job and finding the right one in itself is a lot of work. I think a lot of people have the expectation that finding a job should take about five minutes. As with anything else, though, the more work you put in, the better job you'll probably find. Particularly in this economy.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 02:20 AM |
|
|
I go back to my statement. Life isn't fair. Just live with it or turn emo.
It is not fair that people such as myself scraping by barely making payments for the bare necessities live in a not so terrible form of existence while people overseas (like my family once did) live either in tiny 1 room straw shacks, or even just under the jungle canopy with fist sized spiders as the tastiest thing to eat around, scorpions, blood sucking insects and rats invade your bedsheets and goddamn parrots steal what little fruit you can manage to scrummage from the wild making corpse water the only thing you can "catch" and supply you with (very little) nutrients regularly (said scorpions, insects, rats and parrots are very hard to actually kill to eat, they are good at running/flying and hiding).
See, I'm not complaining that the rich have it better than other people. I'm saying the entire planet is unfair. In a perfect world, where poverty and evil do not exist (never going to happen), it would be fair for people to have more than others because the only thing stopping people in that case is the hard work they put into it and nothing else.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 03:45 AM |
|
|
I still don't see how life isn't fair. Perhaps someone could explain it to me. Actually, I'm still waiting on a definition of "fair".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
