ugh you're just jealous of ~my success~

[phuckphace]

split from another thread since it would go better in here

on the subject of intelligence and wealth accumulation, I asserted that intelligence in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing as it can be used for underhanded purposes as well as good, and the super-wealthy (people like Warren Buffett) are evidence of this. in addition to financial acumen, shrewdness makes you an excellent bullshitter, and some among us apparently buy into it:

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3149203&postcount=23

First of all, I think that he really is a genuinely good guy. He works to promote gender equality in business and for the wealthy to donate to charity. He also pushes the government to stop babying the upper class. Your complaint is that he is too shrewd and obsessed with personal success and gain. Whats so wrong with that? Thats the way the world works. If you want to make money and be successful, you have to be shrewd. Im getting really irritated by the segment of Americans who just complain about the success of others. Sure, many people take advantage of others and hurt America, but there are others that work hard and do what it takes to succeed.

:lol3: what's tiresome about this discussion is the fact that those who shill for the wealthy cannot differentiate between petty jealousy/covetousness and legit criticism of wealth concentration and the moral/ethical concerns of allowing blatant greed to go unchecked. when I say "super-wealthy" it gets twisted by shills into "people even slightly more successful than me" which often makes me wonder why I even bother.

your assertion that Buffett pushes the government to stop babying the upper class is absurd when you consider that it was this same babying that allowed Buffett et al to amass so much wealth in the first place. Buffett "pushes" them precisely because he knows it's never going to happen and thus he has nothing to worry about, and of course it boosts his "man of the people" schtick.

according to Forbes, Buffett's wealth as of 2015 is 72.3 billion dollars. to give you an idea of just how much money that is, consider that it's enough to give every single person on Earth about $10 and some change. I'm not saying we should really do this so don't flip, just putting it into perspective for you. it's one thing to make a few hundred grand a year and live in a nice house and own a boat (I'll never have any of that but have nothing against those who do). it's entirely another to hoard mountains and mountains of cash as the super-wealthy do, and use it for nefarious purposes including subverting and neutering your precious "democracy."

"ugh what's wrong with being singularly obsessed with personal gain" if you have to have someone spell out for you exactly why greed is not, in fact, a virtue, you probably ought to look into revising your worldview

[Microcosm]

You worded this very well. I absolutely have to agree with phuckphace on this one.

Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/wealth-inequality/

It's old, but I just googled that really quick so you could get the picture. Do you really think that the top 1% of the population deserves to have as much money as the other 99% of the population combined? Does that really seem like a good thing?

Greed is a vice way more than it is a virtue, and I'll tell you right now that it is greed that is running the U.S. government. No one cares of course because the government has brainwashed us to think they've got it all under control when they're rolling in cash. Look up how the Federal Reserve works and makes its money and you'll see what I mean.

People don't look into this stuff enough. They give the government a pass because they simply don't care and don't want to deal with the problem. They don't want to accept the fact that it's a problem because it's too hard to solve. So, they just let it slide as the rich get tremendously richer.

[Uniquemind]

The USA needs a wealth cap, that is generally broad to allow for a luxurious lifestyle but effectively protects democratic subversion.


When you've "made it", you've "made it". You're done like finishing a school assignment early.

[Vlerchan]

The USA needs a wealth cap, that is generally broad to allow for a luxurious lifestyle but effectively protects democratic subversion.
People are high-earners because these offers (quite specialised) skills that other people desire - and other people desire them because these skills benefit their lives. You're wealth cap disincentivises people to bother to offer these skills - past a certain point - to the greater detriment of the general population.

Because when I finish an assignment I don't start again for fun.

You can argue whatever about the social outcomes in unequal societies or democratic subversion or gains from illegitimate means - but pushing out the most skilled people from national jobs markets is not a good manner of dealing with it: at all.

Not to mention there's a number of means of avoiding this. Just transferring funds into some brass plate enterprise comes to mind first of all.

---

RainbowDash: I have a working / lower-middle class background and am in the global 0.5% - 1%. There's a good chance all the posters in this topic will be. The statistics worth checking are the national-based ones (GINI is a good measure) because these provide meaningful analysis.

---

I also more or less agree with the OP. Greed is bad. But whilst we all continue to live within market economies it's going to be the largest force behind the worlds continued metaphorical rotations.

[Uniquemind]

People are high-earners because these offers (quite specialised) skills that other people desire - and other people desire them because these skills benefit their lives. You're wealth cap disincentivises people to bother to offer these skills - past a certain point - to the greater detriment of the general population.

Because when I finish an assignment I don't start again for fun.

You can argue whatever about the social outcomes in unequal societies or democratic subversion or gains from illegitimate means - but pushing out the most skilled people from national jobs markets is not a good manner of dealing with it: at all.

Not to mention there's a number of means of avoiding this. Just transferring funds into some brass plate enterprise comes to mind first of all.

---

RainbowDash: I have a working / lower-middle class background and am in the global 0.5% - 1%. There's a good chance all the posters in this topic will be. The statistics worth checking are the national-based ones (GINI is a good measure) because these provide meaningful analysis.

---

I also more or less agree with the OP. Greed is bad. But whilst we all continue to live within market economies it's going to be the largest force behind the worlds continued metaphorical rotations.



I'm not saying don't pay them well because they'll still be at the top, but the concept of arbitrary specialized skills having a merit salary of _____ with bonuses is excess to the threat of collapsing the whole systemic economy which in the end will make all their wealth a moot point if the country that money is from collapses.



No I reject that idea I think it's toxic to justify the greed we've seen, and the back deal making that skirts laws on the market by a technicality.




You should work not because of what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. A country that allows for such uncontrolled greed will collapse.


Those who are motivated by a passion for what they do will do the work and gain the skills necessary in the place of those who only do it for power and greed.

They will do it for the job's honor alone and a comfortable salary albeit not a ludicrous one.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not saying don't pay them well because they'll still be at the top[.]
I realise this. What I'm claiming is that people will work until the wealth cap is reached - and then stop (in general). It would be the equivalent of a 100% marginal tax rate thereafter.

[...] but the concept of arbitrary specialized skills having a merit salary of _____ with bonuses is excess to the threat of collapsing the whole systemic economy which in the end will make all their wealth a moot point if the country that money is from collapses.
You'll need to explain how it will result in an economic collapse.

---

There's also no arbitrariness involved - outside of government intervention - in determining the market price of that skill (salaries). People demand skills that other people have supplied and this results in a price(s) being set that tends towards some equilibrium price. It's possible to claim that demand is based on 'irrational' motives - but that relies on us claiming we understand someone's preferences better than that someone: which is a difficult argument to make outside specific cases like addiction.

You should work not because of what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
This is a nice sentiment. But that's sort of it.

Those who are motivated by a passion for what they do will do the work and gain the skills necessary in the place of those who only do it for power and greed.
You can be assured that there will be less work achieved overall.

re: Laffer Curve - which no-one doubts exists: just questions that maximisation point.

[Uniquemind]

I realise this. What I'm claiming is that people will work until the wealth cap is reached - and then stop (in general). It would be the equivalent of a 100% marginal tax rate thereafter.


You'll need to explain how it will result in an economic collapse.

---

There's also no arbitrariness involved - outside of government intervention - in determining the market price of that skill (salaries). People demand skills that other people have supplied and this results in a price(s) being set that tends towards some equilibrium price. It's possible to claim that demand is based on 'irrational' motives - but that relies on us claiming we understand someone's preferences better than that someone: which is a difficult argument to make outside specific cases like addiction.


This is a nice sentiment. But that's sort of it.


You can be assured that there will be less work achieved overall.

re: Laffer Curve - which no-one doubts exists: just questions that maximisation point.

I'll go into my theoretical claims later, as I'm low on time atm.


But you also misunderstand the wealth cap, it caps a salary one can earn at the highest percentile.


For instance a lot of financial executives who still took home 3-15 million even though the financial institutions they ran went belly-up.

My policy would not only have barred that from happening it would've drove a nail into the hard message that you are expected to perform because of the vital importance your job can do for you country.

I think it's a myth that there is no qualified people to take the jobs of the specially skilled, I think their is neoptism in the one % giving jobs via their social network (family, friends) and that lots of people can fill as well but are passed over because they aren't in the buddy's social circle. That's not even including sex scandals and sexual leverage to rise in the higher echelons.

---

If people are still paying taxes, and want to stay at the top they'll keep working.

If they leave then that means someone else gets a shot at the job they vacate.

[Vlerchan]

But you also misunderstand the wealth cap, it caps a salary one can earn at the highest percentile.
You'll need to define 'highest percentile' because I'm not sure what you mean.

It's hard to respond to most of the rest of the post until this is clarified. When this is I will track back.

To note, when I think wealth cap, I think capping the value of all combined liquid and semi-liquid assets (cash and deposits) at a certain figure, and barring people from owning more.

I think it's a myth that there is no qualified people to take the jobs of the specially skilled, I think their is neoptism in the one % giving jobs via their social network (family, friends) and that lots of people can fill as well but are passed over because they aren't in the buddy's social circle.
I don't think that someone could just jump to be a CEO or vice-president or director within a firm. These roles require highly turned organisational skills and an indepth knowledge of the industry. These are skills that are built up through a number of years of active experience. Though of course social circles are of some importance. I don't think it's possible to get rid of that. But so is being capable of doing a good job because the people who hire you don't want to lose their investment - and the dependence of the investment on an individual becomes more emphasised the higher up the ladder that individual is.

The major problem is also the rampant short-termism of modern investing. Because most people are quick to offload their stock there's no need to care about the long-run wellbeing of the firm - and that leads to shareholders hiring people to lead firms who are willing to pump up short-run shareholder value. You want to put a hold to bad hiring practices that cause financial meltdowns, force investors to engage in long-term investments (eg: holding it so a majority-share must remain within the founding family).

If they leave then that means someone else gets a shot at the job they vacate.
Except for these top jobs there's a limited number of industry veterans to choose from and that's a large part of the reason that such high salaries can be demanded.

---

It's also worth considering the differences that might exist in Irish and US business culture. That might cause us to speak past each other to some extent I think.

Edit didn't save the first time /:

[Uniquemind]

You'll need to define 'highest percentile' because I'm not sure what you mean.

It's hard to respond to most of the rest of the post until this is clarified. When this is I will track back.

To note, when I think wealth cap, I think capping the value of all combined liquid and semi-liquid assets (cash and deposits) at a certain figure, and barring people from owning more.


I don't think that someone could just jump to be a CEO or vice-president or director within a firm. These roles require highly turned organisational skills and an indepth knowledge of the industry. These are skills that are built up through a number of years of active experience. Though of course social circles are of some importance. I don't think it's possible to get rid of that. But so is being capable of doing a good job because the people who hire you don't want to lose their investment - and the dependence of the investment on an individual becomes more emphasised the higher up the ladder that individual is.

The major problem is also the rampant short-termism of modern investing. Because most people are quick to offload their stock there's no need to care about the long-run wellbeing of the firm - and that leads to shareholders hiring people to lead firms who are willing to pump up short-run shareholder value. You want to put a hold to bad hiring practices that cause financial meltdowns, force investors to engage in long-term investments (eg: holding it so a majority-share must remain within the founding family).


Except for these top jobs there's a limited number of industry veterans to choose from and that's a large part of the reason that such high salaries can be demanded.

---

It's also worth considering the differences that might exist in Irish and US business culture. That might cause us to speak past each other to some extent I think.

Edit didn't save the first time /:

We're talking about a social class that makes well over $1,100,000 annually AFTER taxes.

[DriveAlive]

Well you know youve made it in VT when you inspire new threads :)

In all seriousness, Im glad we're having this discussion. Well I would agree more or less with you guys about greed being bad etc., I am particularly defensive of Warren Buffett because he is my role model. Billionaires like him and Richard Branson got that way because they are truly passionate about what they do. The live for the competition and drive to be the best. They also love enriching the world through their influence. Are you telling me that Bill Gates and Elon Musk haven't provided invaluable donations to the world?

I do not mean to sound pretentious, but I come from a family of self-made and very successful people. I do not see monetary success as something to be villified or capped. My uncle (who is a corporate consultant) made a very good point about financial gain. He told me that what makes him happy is being the best at whatever he does, whether that is sports, business, etc. In the business field, the measure of one's success is how much money they make. He makes the top range of salary for his chosen field, which proves to him that he is one of the best at what he does. He said that if he was a garbage man, he would want to be the best garbage man and be paid the most or get the biggest neighborhoods to service, whatever the indicator of being the best in that field may be. This is how I see being successful and how I think Warren Buffett sees it as well.

Another view that I think comes from my life experience that I sort of wish I didnt have is that I am a begrudging believer in the survival of the fittest mentality when it comes to any competition. It is a view that I would not want to see in the majority of people, but it is what motivates some to be more successful than others. It is no secret that some people are naturally smarter, more confident, assertive, and charismatic than others. The very cream of the crop will rise through the ranks and become the most successful in business and industry. Its just like in any sport: some people are just better and will take the starting positions over everyone else. So then why do you want to punish these people for being the best?

I think the main reason why you all view the wealthy and successful in such a negative light is that you confuse shrewdness with greediness. I am all for shrewdness. I see nothing wrong with following the conventions of business and doing what it takes to succeed. I do find greediness (especially at the cost of others) to be morally reprehensible. I think the difference between the two is how and where it is applied. For example, if you are on the board of directors of a law firm (my mom) then you have to behave like a shark because the people you are working and dealing with are the most cut-throat and greedy predators of the business world. The way you handle these kind of people is by being just as shrewd. This is the exact opposite way in which you would say manage a department of a hospital or small business. If you used the same tactics to succeed in this setting as you did in the law firm, then you would be taking advantage of people and are just being greedy. A perfect real-liife example of this is when it came out that Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois had written a letter to a woman that was suing him while he was working in the private sector. Rauner had told her that unless she dropped the lawsuit, he would financially destroy her and her family. Everyone in illinois was all upset at how "mean" and "greedy" Rauner was for saying this. My mom just turned to me and said that it was a standard and completely legitimate tactic of litigation. Rauner was just being shrewd. Now if he went around and became a slum lord and bankrupted anyone that challenged him, then he would be greedy.

I guess my point to all of this is that you can't lump all successful people together. You want to say that these people reached this stratospheric level of wealth and success by being corrupt, but I say that many have done so by being motivated to succeed. Not everyone has or can understand this drive to be the best, but for those who do, it is clear that these people, like Warren Buffett, should be respected for their shrewdness and business intelligence, as well as their public condemnation of greed and donations to charity.

[Uniquemind]

Well you know youve made it in VT when you inspire new threads :)

In all seriousness, Im glad we're having this discussion. Well I would agree more or less with you guys about greed being bad etc., I am particularly defensive of Warren Buffett because he is my role model. Billionaires like him and Richard Branson got that way because they are truly passionate about what they do. The live for the competition and drive to be the best. They also love enriching the world through their influence. Are you telling me that Bill Gates and Elon Musk haven't provided invaluable donations to the world?

I do not mean to sound pretentious, but I come from a family of self-made and very successful people. I do not see monetary success as something to be villified or capped. My uncle (who is a corporate consultant) made a very good point about financial gain. He told me that what makes him happy is being the best at whatever he does, whether that is sports, business, etc. In the business field, the measure of one's success is how much money they make. He makes the top range of salary for his chosen field, which proves to him that he is one of the best at what he does. He said that if he was a garbage man, he would want to be the best garbage man and be paid the most or get the biggest neighborhoods to service, whatever the indicator of being the best in that field may be. This is how I see being successful and how I think Warren Buffett sees it as well.

Another view that I think comes from my life experience that I sort of wish I didnt have is that I am a begrudging believer in the survival of the fittest mentality when it comes to any competition. It is a view that I would not want to see in the majority of people, but it is what motivates some to be more successful than others. It is no secret that some people are naturally smarter, more confident, assertive, and charismatic than others. The very cream of the crop will rise through the ranks and become the most successful in business and industry. Its just like in any sport: some people are just better and will take the starting positions over everyone else. So then why do you want to punish these people for being the best?

I think the main reason why you all view the wealthy and successful in such a negative light is that you confuse shrewdness with greediness. I am all for shrewdness. I see nothing wrong with following the conventions of business and doing what it takes to succeed. I do find greediness (especially at the cost of others) to be morally reprehensible. I think the difference between the two is how and where it is applied. For example, if you are on the board of directors of a law firm (my mom) then you have to behave like a shark because the people you are working and dealing with are the most cut-throat and greedy predators of the business world. The way you handle these kind of people is by being just as shrewd. This is the exact opposite way in which you would say manage a department of a hospital or small business. If you used the same tactics to succeed in this setting as you did in the law firm, then you would be taking advantage of people and are just being greedy. A perfect real-liife example of this is when it came out that Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois had written a letter to a woman that was suing him while he was working in the private sector. Rauner had told her that unless she dropped the lawsuit, he would financially destroy her and her family. Everyone in illinois was all upset at how "mean" and "greedy" Rauner was for saying this. My mom just turned to me and said that it was a standard and completely legitimate tactic of litigation. Rauner was just being shrewd. Now if he went around and became a slum lord and bankrupted anyone that challenged him, then he would be greedy.

I guess my point to all of this is that you can't lump all successful people together. You want to say that these people reached this stratospheric level of wealth and success by being corrupt, but I say that many have done so by being motivated to succeed. Not everyone has or can understand this drive to be the best, but for those who do, it is clear that these people, like Warren Buffett, should be respected for their shrewdness and business intelligence, as well as their public condemnation of greed and donations to charity.

I agree with a lot of your points.

But I disagree with the justification of cruel acts done in the name of shrewdness.

The problem with those who strive to be the best is that they will often swim with sharks who have shaky morals.

When those in the top tier of political and monetary society have shaky morals and justify their actions as "okay" because everyone else is doing it in order to stay at the top, I am not surprised there is economic collapse after economic collapse.

Nobody cares about the best truthful systemic structure, they end up caring about an economic equivalent of a piñata that bursts and you grab the market share you can as fast as you can and then take the argument "I have therefore I deserve or am".


I acknowledge hard earned wealth and privilege, what I do not allow is the "pride creep" I see in a lot of people who claim to be "self-made".

I also take further offense when said people belong or claim to be "Christian" because the tenants of that faith directly contradict between doing the right thing and doing the economic shrewed thing, which will cause one to violate treating others as you would yourself.



Also when it comes to "charitable contributions and philanthropy" I make the case that often they are not making up or are playing clean-up, to consequences or problems they started during their "unethical" or shrewed type of business decisions.


I will defend Warren Buffet though because he has wealth but he doesn't flaunt it nor does he let it speak to his ego. He acknowledges he has a lot of wealth and that is useful and important tool in life, but he doesn't see himself as better than another.



In that sense I do not like "social Darwinist" beliefs as you have stated nor do I accept "trickle-down economics" based on the fact that Regan tried it in the 1980's and it really didn't have the projected effect, and he had to break a campaign promise and raise taxes anyway.


I think I've isolated a few reasons why "supply-side economics" doesn't work, and part of that had to so with landowners really being in the legal right to charge or have a lot of flexibility to charge whatever rent to their business or residential tenants, and so cost savings really fall flat to household consumers.
(That's one reason).


----


Let me also acknowledge a paradox here about free market capitalism generating "the best" quality products because naturally customers will go to a better quality buy for their hard earned money.

Like I said before, it's been proven (especially by Bill Gates in his heyday) that often bigger companies buy up, and destroy competition of a smaller firm that really has a better product.


Once bought out, you'd think they'd start manufacturing the better product, but this doesn't occur often because it does not jive with a business plan they already planned out and set forth and want recouped investment from.

Being successful and having a lot of money only really means a few things:

1. You're good at what you do, but arguably not the best, just best recognized.

2. You might've had some luck on your side. (A lot of it is networking, and timing of who you meet and how and what you say)


---


Here's a philosophical-rhetorical question sentence:

If the culture of an environment justifies moral abdication of a said action, then why do we even try to make the world a better place?

Since we acknowledge the world and nature as by default cutthroat and cruel why do we even have laws at all?

This borderlines or at least mirrors psychopathic/sociopathic thinking and the same schoolyard dynamics of a kindergarten bully versus those he biasedly thinks are weaker.

1. Thugs also use this mentality when they justify their own immoral acts like murder or rape. They take because they have the power too, and then blame the less fortunate victims for not being able to fight them off to successfully protect themselves.


One type of bullying and leverage is illegal, the other is legal, but neither are morally better than another as they share the same pattern of justification:

Everyone else does it, why should I raise the standard upon myself when nobody else is doing that?

[phuckphace]

DriveAlive

so, greed is good?

that's really your main point, although you appear to have convinced yourself otherwise. Americans who were raised on the "greed is good" doctrine have a really hard time defining anything except in terms of money, the ultimate raison d'être and measure of happiness, contentment and health! grasping for Mammon is always wrapped in the same euphemisms - "drive to succeed", "hard work" - virtues which have little if anything to do with how a guy really ends up with 73 billion dollars (he was frugal and clipped coupons amirite?!)

I think Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and all the other insanely wealthy Darwinian miracles are products of their time and more specifically their environments. the economic, market and regulatory conditions of the time were optimum so it happened. helped in no small part by the fact that a) Americans admire money-chasers b) this admiration means no real safeguards against large-scale wealth accumulation, and bam we end up with Scrooge McDuck rolling around in his mountains of gold.

that's what this is about, large-scale wealth accumulation, and the very real consequences of that which you obviously would prefer to ignore. levying a 95% income tax on a guy who owns a successful restaurant would be "punishing success." you kinda stepped around my point here and trailed off into talking about your rich relatives, who from the sounds of it are not the multibillionaires I was referencing in my posts. the super-wealthy with their truckloads of cash and the inordinate amounts of political sway that come with said cash are busily at work at least in one sense - busy engaging in economic treason and betraying the very country that allowed them to amass their fortunes. what does a billionaire with billions do? he lobbies Congress for more breaks and favors so he can...wait for it...make more money. not greed, he protests, shrewdness!

guess it's my turn to show you my...dad's paystub. he works at Boeing, makes bank (probably a lot less than your family but I digress) lives comfortably, and does nothing but complain about how much he's being taxed. it's this sense of entitlement from the already-successful that really burns my ass, that somehow because you're a reasonably smart guy who works hard (I met one once!) it means you're entitled to a warehouse full of Benjis

it's worth noting that I don't believe greed can be eradicated or "cured" as it is part of the human condition, however a nation can certainly do itself a lot of good by not making a civil religion out of it as Americans have done. there's something uniquely American about common people reflexively jumping to the defense of the super-wealthy even when they are shown to be working against the best interests of the common man and the country as a whole - there's always some justification, some rationalization that starts with calling greed something else and then just goes downhill from there

I often wonder what really goes through the mind of a dying billionaire, once it hits him that this really is the end and there's no taking anything with him into the next life (because there isn't one). a whole lifetime of chasing and hoarding Mammon only to find that you and the proles are all the same to the maggots, think about it

[DriveAlive]

Okay theres a lot of stuff going around in this thread that I will try to address but please forgive me if I forget to mention something. I would like to mention that I am a liberal democrat an dI do believe in the preferential option for the poor. With that said, I would have no moral qualms about being a shrewd businessman.

To address the idea that it is hypocritical for some business leaders to claim to be Christians while choosing to act immorally in their business, I have a pretty accurate quote, I think from C.S. Lewis but Im not sure. "It is impossible for there to be a rich Christian". What the speaker means by this is not that Christians can't be successful in business, but rather that Christians principles dictate that a true Christian would donate much of their accumulated wealth to charity.

Speaking of accumulated wealth, I would like to go back to the attacks on Warren Buffett and his vast fortune. You accuse him of being greedy and hoarding his wealth, but he made a great point about it. He says that there are many ways in which he could choose to spend his money. He could hire a thousand artists to paint his portrait every day until he dies, but that would do no good for anyone. Instead, he chooses to use his wealth to amass more and safeguard his fortune so that one day, upon his death, he can distribute the most amount of money to the best charities and help the most people. This is exactly the same idea that Andrew Carnegie preached in his "Gospel of Wealth". Namely, the most successful people should be allowed to gain huge fortunes, but then also have the responsibility to use their money to help others.

Now you say that all of these billionaires that I admire (Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, Bill Gates) are purely the product of luck and the right alignment of economic conditions. If this is really the case and it has nothing to do with their personality, decision-making skills, or intellilgence, then how come everyone in that time and place arent also billioniares? What allowed these individuals to start from nothing and become the most successful businessmen in the world? If you are right and there is nothinng admirable about these people, then who do you view as successful and self-made? Who are your role models?

On the topic of what constitutes success, you seem to believe that no one is really driven by the goal of being the best. I guess its hard to understand if you don't see life in this way, but anyone who is highly competitve and successful in athletics knows exactly what I am talking about. For some, when faced with competition, you are filled with the blinding drive to be the best. If anything stands in your way, you only see red. Its this compulsive drive to win that inspires many to become the most successful industry leaders, not plain greed. I think for many, the money is just a byproduct of success.

This same drive to win that is present in athletics is also what I think creates some of the egos you claim are so destructive. For instance, one of the essential elements of being successful in football (and life) is being confident in yourself and your abilities. Even more than that, you have to actually believe that you are better than everyone else and winning isnt even a question in your mind. This mindset is incredibly valuable in the business world, although I can agree that it can become destructive when it turns into entitlement.

This attitude is also what inspires somme to behave shrewdly, but you see it as greedy and heartless. Everyone in business has a personal set of morals that they choose to conduct themselves by. These morals can't be articulated, but rather can only be seen when making difficult decisions. I can tell you right now that I don't think I would ever do anything unbelievably illegal in order to succeed in business. I also don't think I would do anything for short-term personal gain that would have disasterous long-term effects. But I know that I would not think twice about firing employees to cut costs or undermining competition within my company. At the high level of business that I want to go into (law firms for example) everyone is out for themselves and not everyone plays by the same morals as you do. For this reason, you have to be willing to spill some blood or you will be chewed up and spit out. It is for this reason I do not villify any businessman that behaves in a shrewd manner.

On the issue of entitlement, I completely agree with you. I am sorry if I offend any republiicans out there, but basically every one of them preaches self-reliance and hard work, but really think that they are entitled to everything. I believe that this mindset is rampant throughout America, but appears to be most prevelant amongst the upper class because they seem to be the most vocal about it. But its this rejection of entitlement that I think defends the actions of the shrewdest businessmen. Many people believe that they are entitled to everything that others in business have. This is not the case. Some people are smarter and make better decisions, and thus these people succeed. In the business world, only the strongest survive. No one is entitled to success in business.

With the idea of social darwinism, this is when I become a liberal again. I believe strongly that soccial darwinism is the key to capitalism and justifies shrewd business practices. But that is where I draw the line. In my opinion, the mindset that make some people more successful than others in business should never extend to society. Just like how you swear with your friends but not with your parents or teachers, so should the successful businessman know when to be shrewd and when to be compassionate. In business, subverting a competing partner at your firm is essential to success. In society, exploiting a marginalized neighborhood to sell a product is pure greed. Another way to see it is like how killing is necessary in war, but is seen as murder if you do the same in a school. I know this is really convoluted, but I really cant think of a better way to articulate what I am saying.

[Uniquemind]

Actually I never said Purely/Only luck or circumstance made the above people successful.

It is a combo of factors that others and myself have stated above that work together.

[Porpoise101]

If people looked at history and looked back at the US they would see a lot of similarities to Rome. Let's look at the similarities.

So Rome, it was once disciplined, ruled by a wealthy ruling class in the form of a republic, a military and technological powerhouse, influential, expansionist, and economically sound for the most part. Sounds a lot like the US before the 70s to me.

Rome eventually became decadent, ruled by superwealthy people looking out for themselves, corrupt, outpaced by others, stuck by religious dogma, less influential politically (but not culturally), and unstable due to mass immigration and war. Sounds a lot like today a bit. Today in the US, no foreign incursion can occur because our military might and isolation is too much. But in the past, the Romans crumbled but their cultural legacy still lives to this day.

tl;Dr the US may be repeating history but that's OK because we'll be dead

[Capto]

Uh Rome was economically a disaster. Not sure where you got its supposed idea of economic soundness from.

The high relative wealth of its traditional patricians and other nobiles was due in huge part to the initially relatively consistent pattern of conquest and pilfering of war treasures to pad Roman coffers. Such wealth was maintained in an incredibly unsustainable fashion by high and poorly managed taxation on agricultural production. While the conquests of Rome did in fact spark to a not insignificant degree the expansion and development of intra-imperial commerce and hence the concept of regional specialization in the way of production (again primarily agricultural given the necessity for large amounts of food caused by the massive Army of the Romans), the aforementioned high taxes definitely worked in a counterproductive fashion to the newly national status of the market and subsequent increase in demand by severely and consistently low supply due to the unwillingness of the producer to subject themselves to high taxes.

[Porpoise101]

Well the Roman economy depended on expansion and trade. The unsustainability of this model of continuous growth did lead to its downfall. The overall development and environmental degradation of major urban areas also made disease an economic problems too. But in its heyday during the Roman republic there were lots.of territorial gains, especially in the rich provinces of Hispania and Dacia. Of course, the economy was punctuated by growth and contraction as all economies do.

Source: www()the-romans()co()uk/economy()htm

[Capto]

You're going to want to look at what kind of source you're using again, because Dacia was never actually controlled by the Roman Republic, being that it was conquered by the Roman emperor Trajan in the second century CE.

[DriveAlive]

Actually I never said Purely/Only luck or circumstance made the above people successful.

It is a combo of factors that others and myself have stated above that work together.

So youre saying that no one is in fact self-made. So then who do you think is successful and who are your role models? Is no one who is financially acceptable also a good person? I have an inkling suspicion that you and I have a radically different view of success.

[Body odah Man]

split from another thread since it would go better in here

on the subject of intelligence and wealth accumulation, I asserted that intelligence in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing as it can be used for underhanded purposes as well as good, and the super-wealthy (people like Warren Buffett) are evidence of this. in addition to financial acumen, shrewdness makes you an excellent bullshitter, and some among us apparently buy into it:

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3149203&postcount=23



:lol3: what's tiresome about this discussion is the fact that those who shill for the wealthy cannot differentiate between petty jealousy/covetousness and legit criticism of wealth concentration and the moral/ethical concerns of allowing blatant greed to go unchecked. when I say "super-wealthy" it gets twisted by shills into "people even slightly more successful than me" which often makes me wonder why I even bother.

your assertion that Buffett pushes the government to stop babying the upper class is absurd when you consider that it was this same babying that allowed Buffett et al to amass so much wealth in the first place. Buffett "pushes" them precisely because he knows it's never going to happen and thus he has nothing to worry about, and of course it boosts his "man of the people" schtick.

according to Forbes, Buffett's wealth as of 2015 is 72.3 billion dollars. to give you an idea of just how much money that is, consider that it's enough to give every single person on Earth about $10 and some change. I'm not saying we should really do this so don't flip, just putting it into perspective for you. it's one thing to make a few hundred grand a year and live in a nice house and own a boat (I'll never have any of that but have nothing against those who do). it's entirely another to hoard mountains and mountains of cash as the super-wealthy do, and use it for nefarious purposes including subverting and neutering your precious "democracy."

"ugh what's wrong with being singularly obsessed with personal gain" if you have to have someone spell out for you exactly why greed is not, in fact, a virtue, you probably ought to look into revising your worldview

The corruption and manipulation that goes on in this world is enough to depress you forever :(

[phuckphace]

our friend here obviously wants to continue talking in circles about success and shrewdness and self-made people while ignoring my belabored points. which is fine, we haven't had a multi-page class war thread in far too long

in the world DriveAlive lives in, you haven't truly "made it" unless you, as a single individual, control more wealth than some nation-states. after all, wealth is a measure of intelligence and business acumen that scales indefinitely - a guy with 73 billion dollars is *obviously* at least 72 billion percent smarter and more "success-driven" than a guy who earns a paltry $400k a year!!! otherwise the other guy would be a billionaire too!!!

while it is true that people are unequally gifted (I don't and have never denied that some people are born smarter/stupider than others) hard work, marketable skills, intelligence and a drive to succeed are not as uncommon and exclusive as DA appears to be implying with his rhetorical question of "why don't market alignments make everybody a billionaire?!" professionals use their skills, intelligence and work ethic to achieve success all the time - I've met some of these people and seen what they do. but curiously, a semi-truck loaded with pallets of $100 bills never shows up at their doorstep, and they have to settle for a meager few hundred grand a year and only one house. it would seem that earning a comfortable, upper-middle-class income is good enough for the vast majority of people, but for the pathologically greedy it's never enough. I noted how people who already have billions continue to amass wealth through rent-seeking, which was ignored. I noted how billionaires use their money to influence politics in their own favor at the expense of the country, which got ignored too. as it turns out, there's nothing more noble and benevolent than a billionaire who donates to his own charities for the tax breaks and then crows about it! I hear Warren Buffett lives in a modest house in a modest neighborhood and made sure to write a book mentioning this so we'd all be aware of just how humble he is. psshh, money? that's secondary to the satisfaction I get from managing my portfolio http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

then there's the fact that even legitimately self-made people owe their success in part to prior accomplishments by others. you can point to someone like Bill Gates as example of a smart guy who came from nothing and made it big, but that's abbreviating some critical parts of the story, like the fact that Microsoft started out as a software company licensing software to run on someone else's hardware. they didn't even write DOS, their first operating system that brought them their critical first success - they bought the rights from somebody else for a song. ever seen Pirates of Silicon Valley? if IBM had told Gates and Ballmer to get bent, that would've been el fin right there, there would be no MS today and Gates would be the general manager of a Best Buy.

[Vlerchan]

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.short

Previous research indicates that lower-class individuals experience elevated negative emotions as compared with their upper-class counterparts. We examine how the environments of lower-class individuals can also promote greater compassionate responding-that is, concern for the suffering or well-being of others. In the present research, we investigate class-based differences in dispositional compassion and its activation in situations wherein others are suffering. Across studies, relative to their upper-class counterparts, lower-class individuals reported elevated dispositional compassion (Study 1), as well as greater self-reported compassion during a compassion-inducing video (Study 2) and for another person during a social interaction (Study 3). Lower-class individuals also exhibited heart rate deceleration-a physiological response associated with orienting to the social environment and engaging with others-during the compassion-inducing video (Study 2). We discuss a potential mechanism of class-based influences on compassion, whereby lower-class individuals' are more attuned to others' distress, relative to their upper-class counterparts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22148992

There's also a host of empirical support that demonstrates that people who graduate with an degrees emphasising modules in economics - like all degrees from business schools - exhibit more signs of greed than otherwise. I can also vouch for this as someone studying for a degree in economics. So, double-the above, for Mr. Warren and his investor-class ilk.

I'll add that the it might be true, as DriveAlive claims, that these people just want to be the best at what they do. But that doesn't explain for the occupations these people enter. I plan on specialising in development economics so I can sacrifice hundreds of thousand in potential earnings to help develop the economic infrastructure in developing countries.

[Uniquemind]

So youre saying that no one is in fact self-made. So then who do you think is successful and who are your role models? Is no one who is financially acceptable also a good person? I have an inkling suspicion that you and I have a radically different view of success.



Monetary success, to me is tiered in how I view a person. When I critique a person, I give them my basic respect by default simply because they are a living entity, but to earn my trust and to have me to look up to them as a role-model that's a higher benchmark.

I look towards characteristic traits like, strong ideals balanced with flexibility and not rigid ideology mixed with compassion. Intelligence, creativity, humbleness, and motivational drive with discipline.


Those things are often found in those who want to "be the best" so yes some will have monetary success like Warren Buffet, but there are plenty of 80K earners or lower who have all of those qualities and are just as much role-models to me as well.

My way of seeing success is not as linear as what social-darwinism defines as those who are worth a lot vs very little (possible freeloaders).

[DriveAlive]

You all say that people sould be happy with making a few hundred thousand a year, and I would agree. I would be very happy making that much. But I see a adifference between being happy with and settling for. For instance, I would be happy and feel very fortunate if I made $500k a year, but I would not stop there if I knew I could work harder and make more. I want to do whatever possible within the law and my own personal morals to be as successful as possible and make as much money as possible.

You also say that wanting to make more money is just being greedy. Well I think George Carlin made a good, albeit humorous, point when he said, "if your neighbor buys a vibrator that plays the star spangled banner, you want one too." Its this logic of wanting more that stimulates the captilaist economy that has allowed America to become the most economically powerful country in the world. Greed is a powerful factor in stimulating the economy, but it should not be the controlling factor in life.

Everything needs to be regulated by morals. For instance, I will do whatever it takes to make as much money as possible, as long as I do not violate my own set of morals. You say that those who make a lot of money clearly have loose morals that allow them to be ruled by greed. I think that you cannot claim a socioeconomic group is more morally corrupt than another. Just like how I believe that some people are born smarter, stronger, etc. than others, I also believe that some people have different moral values than others. These people would be bad in any job they occupy.

So what makes billionaires (and the rich in general) the target of all of your criticism. You say that they have all of this power to control and influence the world. I agree that with money comes influence, but this can be used to do good. In fact, I think that the billionaires have done more for the world than most others. Warren Buffett has publically criticized the greedy, lobbied congress for more taxes and regulations on the wealthy and corporations, and promoted the equal employment of women. Bill Gates has founded some of the most successful charities and has almost single-handedly eradicated polio and other diseases in the world. Sir Richard Branson has sponsored great advances in space travel and has promoted charities to aid the impoverished and the hiring of ex-cons. Elon Musk has revolutionized electric car technology and his free patent approach could not only change the face of automotive tech and the environmental impact of transportation, but also the way in which technology is shared in the world. Clearly, there are some billionaires like the Koch brothers or Donald Trump that are giant douchebags, but they shouldn't define the class, just like how drug addicts shouldn't define the entire homeless population.

I agree with what others have said about personal morals being what defines a person as successful, and I would agree to this to some extent. In my mind, a person is only successful if they do so as an upstanding and moral person. Then, I believe people should strive to be as successful and prosperous as possible. So Ill ask again, if you don't think the people I listed are successful, then who do you specifically think is successful or is a role model?

[Uniquemind]

You all say that people sould be happy with making a few hundred thousand a year, and I would agree. I would be very happy making that much. But I see a adifference between being happy with and settling for. For instance, I would be happy and feel very fortunate if I made $500k a year, but I would not stop there if I knew I could work harder and make more. I want to do whatever possible within the law and my own personal morals to be as successful as possible and make as much money as possible.

You also say that wanting to make more money is just being greedy. Well I think George Carlin made a good, albeit humorous, point when he said, "if your neighbor buys a vibrator that plays the star spangled banner, you want one too." Its this logic of wanting more that stimulates the captilaist economy that has allowed America to become the most economically powerful country in the world. Greed is a powerful factor in stimulating the economy, but it should not be the controlling factor in life.

Everything needs to be regulated by morals. For instance, I will do whatever it takes to make as much money as possible, as long as I do not violate my own set of morals. You say that those who make a lot of money clearly have loose morals that allow them to be ruled by greed. I think that you cannot claim a socioeconomic group is more morally corrupt than another. Just like how I believe that some people are born smarter, stronger, etc. than others, I also believe that some people have different moral values than others. These people would be bad in any job they occupy.

So what makes billionaires (and the rich in general) the target of all of your criticism. You say that they have all of this power to control and influence the world. I agree that with money comes influence, but this can be used to do good. In fact, I think that the billionaires have done more for the world than most others. Warren Buffett has publically criticized the greedy, lobbied congress for more taxes and regulations on the wealthy and corporations, and promoted the equal employment of women. Bill Gates has founded some of the most successful charities and has almost single-handedly eradicated polio and other diseases in the world. Sir Richard Branson has sponsored great advances in space travel and has promoted charities to aid the impoverished and the hiring of ex-cons. Elon Musk has revolutionized electric car technology and his free patent approach could not only change the face of automotive tech and the environmental impact of transportation, but also the way in which technology is shared in the world. Clearly, there are some billionaires like the Koch brothers or Donald Trump that are giant douchebags, but they shouldn't define the class, just like how drug addicts shouldn't define the entire homeless population.

I agree with what others have said about personal morals being what defines a person as successful, and I would agree to this to some extent. In my mind, a person is only successful if they do so as an upstanding and moral person. Then, I believe people should strive to be as successful and prosperous as possible. So Ill ask again, if you don't think the people I listed are successful, then who do you specifically think is successful or is a role model?


Consumption and demand for more and more stuff stimulates the USA and world economies yes, but make no mistake there is a cost(s), some of which the consequences have yet to be fully unleashed.


Warren Buffet is a role model of mine in the sense that he understands the whole balancing act between chasing more and ensuring a strong country infrastructure.

I am speaking to the point of the macro picture here.

If you study what lead up to 2008 Great Recession, more people got hurt and have not recovered (the specific people were laid off then have not been the same individuals who regained jobs in the recovery years after 2008) a chase for more money and credit and ways to pass off toxic investments not labeled as toxic hurt the system as a whole.


That's the kind of bad consequence that is so heavy it practically undoes any good that the philosophy of greed gives society as a benefit when it gets to that level.

"Personal ethics" is weak because it really causes a destabilization of fair competition in an industry, especially in the very important short term fiscal quarter where the illusion of a temporary edge over your competition dominos causing everyone to adjust their personal morals to maintain control or grow their marketshare.


Also recently many of those in the super rich class (mostly republicans) as statistics show the Republican Party tends to be the party made up of higher income earners, have donated money to restrict people's right to vote.

It's unbalancing the USA's democracy and this harm has not been undone by any temporary economic benefit which seems to only last or provide the country a decade of good years before everyone is right back where they started before.


Keynesian economics is good but it hasn't been executed in all it's stages correctly partly due to political stalls rather than getting laws and procedures done on time.

Because the rich tend to support republicans statistically more, I can accuse them of more bad than good outcomes.


Just look at the push back Warren Buffet got when he proposed raising taxes.




Also let's not forget there is a huge pile of trash floating in the pacific due to the culture of consumption being justified because it stimulates the economy.



Also a sub-par nuclear power plant design was sold to Japan and is also used all around the West Coast in nuclear power plants that are disaster zones just waiting to happen.
A disaster of that magnitude would also damage the economy so bad it would undo all the economic good we've made in the last 75 years.

Bad consequence of someone not wanting to shell out extra money for a safer nuclear power plant design.

I argue the mentality had caused more damage or has opened up a weakness of such damage to which we've yet to understand how to fix.


As it stands the bad outweighs the good.

[DriveAlive]

Consumption and demand for more and more stuff stimulates the USA and world economies yes, but make no mistake there is a cost(s), some of which the consequences have yet to be fully unleashed.


Warren Buffet is a role model of mine in the sense that he understands the whole balancing act between chasing more and ensuring a strong country infrastructure.

I am speaking to the point of the macro picture here.

If you study what lead up to 2008 Great Recession, more people got hurt and have not recovered (the specific people were laid off then have not been the same individuals who regained jobs in the recovery years after 2008) a chase for more money and credit and ways to pass off toxic investments not labeled as toxic hurt the system as a whole.


That's the kind of bad consequence that is so heavy it practically undoes any good that the philosophy of greed gives society as a benefit when it gets to that level.

"Personal ethics" is weak because it really causes a destabilization of fair competition in an industry, especially in the very important short term fiscal quarter where the illusion of a temporary edge over your competition dominos causing everyone to adjust their personal morals to maintain control or grow their marketshare.


Also recently many of those in the super rich class (mostly republicans) as statistics show the Republican Party tends to be the party made up of higher income earners, have donated money to restrict people's right to vote.

It's unbalancing the USA's democracy and this harm has not been undone by any temporary economic benefit which seems to only last or provide the country a decade of good years before everyone is right back where they started before.


Keynesian economics is good but it hasn't been executed in all it's stages correctly partly due to political stalls rather than getting laws and procedures done on time.

Because the rich tend to support republicans statistically more, I can accuse them of more bad than good outcomes.


Just look at the push back Warren Buffet got when he proposed raising taxes.




Also let's not forget there is a huge pile of trash floating in the pacific due to the culture of consumption being justified because it stimulates the economy.



Also a sub-par nuclear power plant design was sold to Japan and is also used all around the West Coast in nuclear power plants that are disaster zones just waiting to happen.
A disaster of that magnitude would also damage the economy so bad it would undo all the economic good we've made in the last 75 years.

Bad consequence of someone not wanting to shell out extra money for a safer nuclear power plant design.

I argue the mentality had caused more damage or has opened up a weakness of such damage to which we've yet to understand how to fix.


As it stands the bad outweighs the good.
You will not get any complaint out of me by criticizing republicans. I would also agree that many upper class people are republicans. That does not change the fact, however, that most of the publically opinionated billioniares that I see as successful rolemodels are, in fact, democrats. This further supports my assertion that these people are driven in their carreers to succeed, but can separate their shrewd business life from their social views.

[Uniquemind]

You will not get any complaint out of me by criticizing republicans. I would also agree that many upper class people are republicans. That does not change the fact, however, that most of the publically opinionated billioniares that I see as successful rolemodels are, in fact, democrats. This further supports my assertion that these people are driven in their carreers to succeed, but can separate their shrewd business life from their social views.

And you'll find no argument with me there regarding your last few sentences.

There's definitely a delicate balance I think that is achievable as long as everyone is playing fairly in the free market.

However these last recent years have shown a destabilization in the country's infrastructure and have compromised the long term health of the country to politics (going over the debt ceiling without it being raised on time etc.) among other political snafus that really ruin how Keynesian economic theory is supposed to be practiced and then they blame the theory as being faulty...it's a strawman setup.

[phuckphace]

[...]For instance, I would be happy and feel very fortunate if I made $500k a year, but I would not stop there if I knew I could work harder and make more. I want to do whatever possible within the law and my own personal morals to be as successful as possible and make as much money as possible.

:lol3: well there you have it folks. he spells out the very definition of greed and, as I had guessed - it's his personal manifesto. no moral conflicts here, oh no sir, thanks to late-stage cognitive dissonance. so American it hurts and it's not even the 4th yet

this is followed by the usual tattered rationalizations - "if it stimulates the economy it must be good", "if a new pointless overhyped gizmo comes along that makes it fractionally easier to be a catatonic fatass we should all buy it so the economy goes up" and hilariously with the implication that the bigger, the better. keep consuming, people, and don't stop except for a pee break

so yeah the USA is totally fucked because way too many people in this country share this malignant worldview to our collective detriment (the chickens will come home to roost at some point). money truly is the root of all evil, and we ignore this at our own peril

I don't have role models but if I were to pick one it definitely wouldn't be some avaricious prick who lives, breathes and shits money. I suppose you could say normal, regular, everyday people are my role models - I aspire to meet the minimum standards to be considered better than mediocre, anything beyond that just ain't my game

[DriveAlive]

:lol3: well there you have it folks. he spells out the very definition of greed and, as I had guessed - it's his personal manifesto. no moral conflicts here, oh no sir, thanks to late-stage cognitive dissonance. so American it hurts and it's not even the 4th yet

this is followed by the usual tattered rationalizations - "if it stimulates the economy it must be good", "if a new pointless overhyped gizmo comes along that makes it fractionally easier to be a catatonic fatass we should all buy it so the economy goes up" and hilariously with the implication that the bigger, the better. keep consuming, people, and don't stop except for a pee break

so yeah the USA is totally fucked because way too many people in this country share this malignant worldview to our collective detriment (the chickens will come home to roost at some point). money truly is the root of all evil, and we ignore this at our own peril

I don't have role models but if I were to pick one it definitely wouldn't be some avaricious prick who lives, breathes and shits money. I suppose you could say normal, regular, everyday people are my role models - I aspire to meet the minimum standards to be considered better than mediocre, anything beyond that just ain't my game

Wow so much hate for someone so young. I personally see striving for success as a positive, and work as hard as I can to make myself better and be better than my competition. You clearly do not share this mindset.

I also fully support capitalism as the best economic system on the planet. With that said, I am not for what the Republicans would call a free market. I would much rather term it a competitive market. I think competition should be allowed to dominate the market, but for that to happen, there must be some regulation on business. But for this to even happen, there must be actual market competiton. You have not called for a regulated market, but rather have voiced your opposition to competition, which you merely see as greed.

You say that you would be happy being just above mediocre. While I applaud you on your ambition, your whole understanding of job success is based off of those who actually strive to be successful. If everyone was like you and was happy with never moving past low level managment, then there would be no economic leaders or companies or jobs or products or an economy. If everyone was satisfied with mediocrity, then America would never have become the economic and political powerhouse that it is in the world.

I don't mean to belittle you, and I would rather have more people opposed to greed than be a Republican, but I just do not believe that you are viewing the situation realistically. You clearly do not support capitalism. You don't seem to believe in socialism. From reading your posts, you seem to just support economic nihilism.

[Vlerchan]

Ugh.

The issue is in equating success with the size of someone's earnings packet. You can claim that's just what the game demands but it is obvious from the use of language that little else occupies your mind: You haven't once referenced someone you consider a rolemodel engaging with something that isn't cash.
The major issue here is that it's possible to be the best in terms of using a skill and not make lots of cash because most sectors tend to be made up of different divisions.
Shrewd refers to behaviour. Greed refers to motives. It's possible to be a shrewd and greed-driven buisnessman. Your point in that regard is invalid and also undermines your claim that successful people must be moral - because the morals being pushed are that of ethical egoism.
I have produced evidence demonstrating that upper class people tend to be more unethical.
Further:

Regulation undermines competition.

[phuckphace]

Wow so much hate for someone so young.

but which do I hate more, the player...or the game? perhaps we'll never know

I personally see striving for success as a positive, and work as hard as I can to make myself better and be better than my competition. You clearly do not share this mindset.

either your reading comprehension is poor or you are being intentionally obtuse - either way my points are flying right over your head.

for the 72.3 billionth time:


success is not inherently bad
hard work is not inherently bad (why tf would it be?)
competition is not inherently bad
shrewdness is not inherently bad
making money is not inherently bad (aside from the whole "root of all evil" thing)


it's greed that is bad and greed that is the problem. these things I listed become bad when they are channeled into the obsessive pursuit of money, which is greed. since you've adopted greed as part of your worldview, you can't comprehend that "strive to succeed" means anything other than grasping for as much cash as you can possibly get your hands on. I already noted that success is relatively easy to come by for those with the right skills, intelligence and whatever else with six figure incomes pretty much guaranteed - feh, chump change for Mr Moneybags here.

You have not called for a regulated market, but rather have voiced your opposition to competition, which you merely see as greed.

don't believe I ever stated or implied that competition is bad or inherently greedy. I have a problem with greedy people (like you) who justify their greed by calling it "competition" and a "drive to succeed." you really ought to just cut the BS and call a spade a spade. lots of people have a drive to succeed and lots of people compete, which is fine. what's not fine is huge amounts of wealth in the hands of a few greed-driven people and the socioeconomic fallout from that. but you're insulated from that and therefore have no reason to care about it.

If everyone was like you and was happy with never moving past low level management, then there would be no economic leaders or companies or jobs or products or an economy. If everyone was satisfied with mediocrity, then America would never have become the economic and political powerhouse that it is in the world.

:lol3: IF EVERYONE

what are you even trying to argue here? I never said everyone should share my aspirations, or that everyone should be mediocre. if everyone was as greedy as you we'd all be dead, but thankfully they aren't as people have their differences (duh). I also can't remember stating anything to the contrary.

I don't mean to belittle you, and I would rather have more people opposed to greed than be a Republican, but I just do not believe that you are viewing the situation realistically. You clearly do not support capitalism. You don't seem to believe in socialism.

I believe in whatever will give me this (http://i.imgur.com/zF7sYdP.jpg) back, while this (http://i.imgur.com/afvc6b5.jpg) is being hung publicly.

call me hate-filled or whatever you like, it's a fact that when vices are tolerated they become bigger and more of a problem, and while greed has always been a human vice it is now more widespread and ritualized than ever before thanks to globalized capitalism. I know that really rustles your jimmies when people assign any blame to muh capitalism, but it's fact.

From reading your posts, you seem to just support economic nihilism.

I don't think you've actually read my posts at all, or if you have it was with a pair of binoculars through the window of a speeding car. all you're doing now is beating up strawmen and wasting my time. your next post better show improvement or I'm flunking you

[DriveAlive]

but which do I hate more, the player...or the game? perhaps we'll never know



either your reading comprehension is poor or you are being intentionally obtuse - either way my points are flying right over your head.

for the 72.3 billionth time:


success is not inherently bad
hard work is not inherently bad (why tf would it be?)
competition is not inherently bad
shrewdness is not inherently bad
making money is not inherently bad (aside from the whole "root of all evil" thing)


it's greed that is bad and greed that is the problem. these things I listed become bad when they are channeled into the obsessive pursuit of money, which is greed. since you've adopted greed as part of your worldview, you can't comprehend that "strive to succeed" means anything other than grasping for as much cash as you can possibly get your hands on. I already noted that success is relatively easy to come by for those with the right skills, intelligence and whatever else with six figure incomes pretty much guaranteed - feh, chump change for Mr Moneybags here.



don't believe I ever stated or implied that competition is bad or inherently greedy. I have a problem with greedy people (like you) who justify their greed by calling it "competition" and a "drive to succeed." you really ought to just cut the BS and call a spade a spade. lots of people have a drive to succeed and lots of people compete, which is fine. what's not fine is huge amounts of wealth in the hands of a few greed-driven people and the socioeconomic fallout from that. but you're insulated from that and therefore have no reason to care about it.



:lol3: IF EVERYONE

what are you even trying to argue here? I never said everyone should share my aspirations, or that everyone should be mediocre. if everyone was as greedy as you we'd all be dead, but thankfully they aren't as people have their differences (duh). I also can't remember stating anything to the contrary.



I believe in whatever will give me this (http://i.imgur.com/zF7sYdP.jpg) back, while this (http://i.imgur.com/afvc6b5.jpg) is being hung publicly.

call me hate-filled or whatever you like, it's a fact that when vices are tolerated they become bigger and more of a problem, and while greed has always been a human vice it is now more widespread and ritualized than ever before thanks to globalized capitalism. I know that really rustles your jimmies when people assign any blame to muh capitalism, but it's fact.



I don't think you've actually read my posts at all, or if you have it was with a pair of binoculars through the window of a speeding car. all you're doing now is beating up strawmen and wasting my time. your next post better show improvement or I'm flunking you

Now lets not get nasty lol. I merely have stated that I think that it is good for a capitalist society if people want to be as successful as possible, as long as they behave morally. I have defended the shrewd practices of certain businessmen that you claim are greedy. I have also stated on numerous occasions that this idea only works if it is regulated and in balance. The billioniares that you so happily crucify in your posts are the ones actually calling for the restoration of this balance. Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates haven't formed some sort of secret shadow organization to influence global politics for their own personal gain.

Some here have criticized me for seemingly only believing that monetary gain is equal to success or that my only role models are the wealthy. This is not true. My role models are those that work hard to accomplish their goals and improve the world. It just so happens that this discussion was about billioniares.

Hard work is no guarantee of success. There are many musicians that work hard but are never monetarily successful. With that said, I don't think large scale success is possible without hard work. That is why I have admiration for the wealthy individuals that clearly worked hard and encourage others to do the same.

The problem with this discussion as it stands is that you seem to be talking (at least in your last post) on the large scale, while I am talking about the individual level. You say that greed has corrupted the world, and I would probably agree that greed has become a destructive force in society. I have many friends that are social liberals, but are still republicans because of their fiscal stance. This, to me, is the problem. People must be able to separate their job practices and personal gain from that of society. The Catholic Church teaches that Catholics need to have preferential option for the poor and always support the common good, but many dont seemm to be doing this.

You also seem to be missing my point about shrewd business practices not being greedy. I don't see it as greedy or morally corrupt to buy out a competitor fire an employee. That is the cost of doing business. I would see it as greedy and morally corrupt if I paid lobbyists to get Congress to pass a law to deregulate environmental policy so that my company can save money while polluting.

[Uniquemind]

Now lets not get nasty lol. I merely have stated that I think that it is good for a capitalist society if people want to be as successful as possible, as long as they behave morally. I have defended the shrewd practices of certain businessmen that you claim are greedy. I have also stated on numerous occasions that this idea only works if it is regulated and in balance. The billioniares that you so happily crucify in your posts are the ones actually calling for the restoration of this balance. Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates haven't formed some sort of secret shadow organization to influence global politics for their own personal gain.

Some here have criticized me for seemingly only believing that monetary gain is equal to success or that my only role models are the wealthy. This is not true. My role models are those that work hard to accomplish their goals and improve the world. It just so happens that this discussion was about billioniares.

Hard work is no guarantee of success. There are many musicians that work hard but are never monetarily successful. With that said, I don't think large scale success is possible without hard work. That is why I have admiration for the wealthy individuals that clearly worked hard and encourage others to do the same.

The problem with this discussion as it stands is that you seem to be talking (at least in your last post) on the large scale, while I am talking about the individual level. You say that greed has corrupted the world, and I would probably agree that greed has become a destructive force in society. I have many friends that are social liberals, but are still republicans because of their fiscal stance. This, to me, is the problem. People must be able to separate their job practices and personal gain from that of society. The Catholic Church teaches that Catholics need to have preferential option for the poor and always support the common good, but many dont seemm to be doing this.

You also seem to be missing my point about shrewd business practices not being greedy. I don't see it as greedy or morally corrupt to buy out a competitor fire an employee. That is the cost of doing business. I would see it as greedy and morally corrupt if I paid lobbyists to get Congress to pass a law to deregulate environmental policy so that my company can save money while polluting.

Tons of corporations do that.

I can't begin to tell you how many communities drinking water got polluted within the last few years just because some corporation thought I'd be cheaper to dump waste into the Mississippi River or some other body of water instead of disposing it properly.


It also sucks that whatever fines Government hits corporations with tend to only be a fraction of the cost, and many corporations now break laws and just account for money needed to break those laws.

Gov. needs to increase the fines, and make it less of a symbolic victory regarding token fines.

[DriveAlive]

Tons of corporations do that.

I can't begin to tell you how many communities drinking water got polluted within the last few years just because some corporation thought I'd be cheaper to dump waste into the Mississippi River or some other body of water instead of disposing it properly.


It also sucks that whatever fines Government hits corporations with tend to only be a fraction of the cost, and many corporations now break laws and just account for money needed to break those laws.

Gov. needs to increase the fines, and make it less of a symbolic victory regarding token fines.
Im glad you mentioned that. My mom is a lawyer and she has handled several large cases involving corporations polluting. I entirely agree that there must be larger fines and restrictions regarding this. The problem is that the legal system is utterly useless, so the gov. needs more power regarding the environment.

[Hyper]

then there's the fact that even legitimately self-made people owe their success in part to prior accomplishments by others. you can point to someone like Bill Gates as example of a smart guy who came from nothing and made it big, but that's abbreviating some critical parts of the story, like the fact that Microsoft started out as a software company licensing software to run on someone else's hardware. they didn't even write DOS, their first operating system that brought them their critical first success - they bought the rights from somebody else for a song. ever seen Pirates of Silicon Valley? if IBM had told Gates and Ballmer to get bent, that would've been el fin right there, there would be no MS today and Gates would be the general manager of a Best Buy.

Bill Gates isn't self made in any way, his parents were way upper class and his mother helped him get the IBM deal that got Microsoft their first big deal writing an OS for IBMs personal computer.

Also lol @ whoever here is believing that hard work always = to more success

It doesn't. The people who are super rich are not unique or the smartest in their field more often than not they got to where they are by: being in the right place at the right time, being lucky (this does include making a really good decision at the right time) and of course underhanded business tactics and of course inheritance and powerful family connections.