Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet you want one group to continue to suck money from another?
Nope, that would be people like you. That is why I don't support the idea of worsening the situation with the grand plans you support (but don't have an ounce of capacity to defend beyond providing the typical right wing rhetoric). I support the idea of reversing this trend we've seen for at least three decades.
I would say, hard work is the least influential of them. Yet, somehow, it makes the top of the list (and usually, the only one mentioned).
And you'd be wrong. If it were my responsibility to work on improving the economy, my goal would be to greater levels of income equality than a reduced level of income inequality, and hope for the best given the realities.
I disagree with this strongly. Creating a healthy economy in which people can mutually help each other is the quickest way to gaining wealth. The majority of people who make it to the top are the ones who are more than willing to help others as much as they possibly can along the way. I strongly disagree with this.
Quote:
Correct.
“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
- Adam Smith
Now only if the rich could operate in a vacuum would your point make sense. Your idea of "hard work" being key is amusing, and right along the very first point in this post. Somehow, it is the only one that makes the list.
With all due respect, Your ignorance of how one becomes wealthy is amusing. Name a single wall street banker that works less than 75 hours per week. Name a single surgeon whose contract is for less than 65 hours/week. Those M&A guys who make millions in the market work 90 hour weeks, year after year. A typical day in the life of a Goldman Sachs banker (as told to me by a few friends of mine who have these jobs) is this: get to work at 9am, go home at 11:30pm. Do that monday-saturday, on sunday sleep in and only work from 4pm-11pm. They become wealthy, and hard work has a LOT to do with it. I am not asking you to believe me, look it up yourself. Actually talk to wealthy people and ask them how they did it. Working hard is absolutely essential. The fact that you disagree with this so much shows me how far removed you are from those worlds on a day to day basis.
Quote:
How else does a person become rich? Or, a rich person richer? Trust me, there is NOTHING wrong with that, in looking for self-interest. What is wrong, however, is denial that people need a healthy society to see the possibility of getting rich.
When did I deny that people need a healthy society? Are you implying that income inequalities are not a part of a healthy society?
Quote:
My moral obligations dictate that the less I speak of charity, the more it means to me. Hence, I won't engage in an argument on that.
Private charity is an essential part of a free market economy, but if you want to cop-out of this discussion, go right ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that private charities are an essential piece of this puzzle.
Quote:
Again, I don't believe in a "vacuum" society.
Separating social responsibilities from legal obligations (or understanding the difference between morals and ethics) is hardly operating in a 'vacuum'.
The problem of income inequality isn't a simple matter of who works hard and who doesn't.
Many are advantaged from birth. Put in better schools, parents with more money, etc.
Its a matter of who you know and who you are born into. That is unfair.
Not necessarily true. I already posted an article explaining how over 2/3 (68.5) of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are self-made, with 6 of the top 10 being entrepreneurs.
Quote:
Supplying more money to make schooling opportunity more equal would be better for the nation.
That's a failed liberal propaganda meme.
My suburban Chicago school district spends $9,800 per student annually while the Chicago Public School district spends over $13,000 per student. Guess which school district is MUCH worse than the other.
(Hint: It's the one that spends much more.)
The horrendously bad Washington, DC public school system spends over $16,000 per student. The inner-city school spending is MORE per pupil. Fork some of that over to the suburban schools and then we'll talk about 'more equal.'
I disagree with this strongly. Creating a healthy economy in which people can mutually help each other is the quickest way to gaining wealth. The majority of people who make it to the top are the ones who are more than willing to help others as much as they possibly can along the way. I strongly disagree with this.
And I did mention that.
What I must add now is a response to your idea that people making it to the top are those who are willing to help others. Since when has charity become the platform for capitalism? That is exact opposite of what Adam Smith preached, where it is self-interest, not charity, that a capitalist goes about for success.
Quote:
With all due respect, Your ignorance of how one becomes wealthy is amusing.
I couldn't be more proud of this perceived ignorance of mine, coming from someone with such a wealth of amusing ideas about acquiring wealth. I take it that such qualifications make or break someone from being a right winger.
Quote:
Name a single wall street banker that works less than 75 hours per week.
Ahem... if working overtime were key to becoming rich, and define "hard work", I would have been a self-made millionaire within the first few years of my professional career. From this, and other arguments of yours, we can at least settle a point that you fit the profile of the people I alluded to, who believe hard work is the most significant key to getting rich.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-22-2011 at 02:53 PM..
Not necessarily true. I already posted an article explaining how over 2/3 (68.5) of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are self-made, with 6 of the top 10 being entrepreneurs.
That's a failed liberal propaganda meme.
My suburban Chicago school district spends $9,800 per student annually while the Chicago Public School district spends over $13,000 per student. Guess which school district is MUCH worse than the other.
(Hint: It's the one that spends much more.)
The horrendously bad Washington, DC public school system spends over $16,000 per student. The inner-city school spending is MORE per pupil. Fork some of that over to the suburban schools and then we'll talk about 'more equal.'
Why do states like Vermont, Mass., Conn., and NY who spend a lot on education have the best education programs and test scores and states with the least per spending like Texas, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama have the worst?
I'll agree that wastefully spending money on education like in Chicago, DC or even in my homestate city, Milwaukee gets us no where but you still need a good amount of money to build something strong.
Supplying more money to make schooling opportunity more equal would be better for the nation.
We spend more per capita than the systems in Europe and Asia. Would you be willing to adopt a system similar to theirs knowing that the outcome is based on scholastic merit as long as everyone was given the same opportunity?
We spend more per capita than the systems in Europe and Asia. Would you be willing to adopt a system similar to theirs knowing that the outcome is based on scholastic merit as long as everyone was given the same opportunity?
I would. I'm a product of that system. The fact that we spend more on something doesn't surprise me at all... we're love to waste (it helps the "GDP").
We spend more per capita than the systems in Europe and Asia. Would you be willing to adopt a system similar to theirs knowing that the outcome is based on scholastic merit as long as everyone was given the same opportunity?
Let me reiterate. We need to continue using money for education but in a much smarter fashion. A lot of what we use is wasted completely.
However I think overall we need to make secondary education more affordable and implement heavy reforms on urban education if thats what you are getting at.
Overall urban education is tricky because from what I see the problem lies from a social aspect, rather than structural.
Anyways try not to nail me too hard, I was merely providing an example of how tax money should be spent.
Why do states like Vermont, Mass., Conn., and NY who spend a lot on education have the best education programs and test scores and states with the least per spending like Texas, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama have the worst?
I'll agree that wastefully spending money on education like in Chicago, DC or even in my homestate city, Milwaukee gets us no where but you still need a good amount of money to build something strong.
Just look at the states who did it right.
Actualy when one looks deeper there are many other reasons.
The town in Mass that I work out of has a school system that is in lowest 15% in cost and the highest 3% in performance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
