Your excellent debate skills have convinced me. You're right. The rich are rich because they're all living off interest and the person who originally made the money did so out of luck. The rich do not provide more to society and the poor are poor because they've had a long stroke of bad luck. Why I couldn't see such a logical conclusion earlier I have no idea, must have been a stroke of bad luck.
You still haven't shown how. I'm sure there were many people who were rich before the French Revolution, they probably aren't now. I'm sure a lot of people made money in during 1920's whose families aren't now.
Even if inheritance grows based on interest, families grow at a geometric rate.
The reason you can't name an alternative to the rich being rich because they are (on average) more productive, because there isn't one.
Instead of answering the question, you've turned it into a circular argument. Here's a reminder of my original assertion:
The rich are rich, because, on average, they are more productive than the poor. Some people may win the lottery and live off the interest, but, in general that is not the case.
I have an open mind to alternatives but you've yet to provide one.
I'm sure the last horse drawn buggy maker was the best in the world. Still, without innovation and continued investment, that buggy maker's checks have long stopped flowing.
Even cash in the bank is eroded by inflation.
I would love to know of an investment in which I can put my money and be guaranteed a steady return for the rest of my life, my children's lives, my grandchildren's lives...
Not sure why your post got modded as flamebait. I guess the phrase "NDA provides some balance if it reasonable" seems like an incendiary statement.
To modders: the modding system isn't a mechanism to bury opinions you don't like. From wikipedia:
"Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in."
The fact that the parent is marked as flamebait generally reflects the hostility and lack of understanding tech-types have towards economics and business types.
The only alternatives to my assertion, that the rich are more productive than the poor, are luck and malice.
Certain people at certain times may get lucky via a lotto ticket or being at the right place at the right time. But, in general, luck cannot account for gross disparity between the very rich and everyone else. If luck were the driving force behind wealth, then the wealthiest people in the world would be lottery winners.
Malice. Sure, many rich people are malicious, as are many poor people. But, malicious individuals tend to reveal themselves eventually and alienate those loyal to them. Without the devotion of a workforce there is no opportunity for further wealth creation. Malice, like luck, may work in the short term and for certain outliers -- but it can't explain everything.
As an engineer and a business owner, I never understood the hostility that a lot of my engineering co-patriots have towards business. Engineers should rule the world. We're smart, motivated, and founded in reality -- all things necessary for running a business.
If you're sitting around cursing the rich, yet go to work for someone else, you're a hypocrite. Take the plunge, create your own company, and create your own wealth. If you're smart enough, people will soon be cursing you.
Nope, you're wrong. Its called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Overtime any investment in anything will diminish to zero as the product or service becomes a commodity.
Just because a system exists doesn't make it right.
The problem with communal services is there is never an end to the need. Everyone on Earth could benefit from $1 million / year in free health care. That doesn't mean we should do it.
If it were trivial to get around the inheritance tax then no one would pay it.
The unspoken reason the GPP believes that 90% of your money should go to the government is that he thinks you don't deserve it. He thinks you didn't earn it.
I'm not rich, and I'm not poor. I am smart enough, though, to realize that some people are way more productive than others. Some people feed the herd and some people simply consume.
In general the rich are rich because they contribute a lot of value to society and invest their money to generate future returns. In general the poor are poor because they don't contribute much value to society and tend to squander their income on disposable goods (like alcohol, cigarrettes, and lotto).
There are exceptions. If you collect checks for no work, and create no value to society, those checks will eventually stop and the problem will fix itself.
The reason wealth tends to cluster in families is because intelligence is a heritable trait.
Paris Hilton is an excellent example of why a 90% tax isn't needed. Stupid, worthless children will squander away any inherited wealth quickly and the problem will fix itself.
The money returns to the economy in the form of the purchase of products and service, no government entity needed.
Hmmm, the economy is collapsing because of the sin of "greed". People are screaming for the government to bail them out because of their "need". Huge industries are being nationalized in the name of protecting the People. And now, Ragnar Danneskjold, is terrorizing the seas.
I'm normally pro-US hegemony and quick to defend our actions. But, I'm about to give a silver bullet to my opposition.
I can't help but notice the parallels between America's situation and Rome during its final centuries. Rome eventually degraded as barbaric pressures from the outside world overwhelmed their ability to control them.
Modern America seems to be collapsing under a similar weight. Terrorism and piracy are equivalent modern forms of barbarism. The fact that the US cannot control it anymore validates the position that the US military is way overstretched and that our empire is on the decline.
The GP is correct to lump all creationists together into one stereotype and here is why:
If you are a creationist then you believe the Bible is the word of God and God is never wrong. If you believe the Bible is the word of God and God is never wrong then you must believe the world is ~7000 years old as Deutoronomy and Numbers specifically lay things out.
If you are a creationist and do not believe the world is ~7000 years old then you (perhaps unconsciously) reject the Bible as the word of God / reject God as 100% right.
It is Christianity that establishes the dichotomy, not the GP. You cannot walk the fence on this issue and expect anyone to take you seriously as a rational human being.
My mistake, you're absolutely right. It was actually 1997 when Saddam started denying them access to inspection sites and expelled all the US inspectors:
The number if people who died is irrelevant. The reason Iraq was justified is that they violated the terms of the first Gulf War's ceasefire.
It took 9/11 to distract enough people from American Idol and get the country behind the invasion. If you honestly thought that the government was telling you the 100% truth leading up to the war, well, good luck in life.
Slashdot Mirror
Your excellent debate skills have convinced me. You're right. The rich are rich because they're all living off interest and the person who originally made the money did so out of luck. The rich do not provide more to society and the poor are poor because they've had a long stroke of bad luck. Why I couldn't see such a logical conclusion earlier I have no idea, must have been a stroke of bad luck.
You still haven't shown how. I'm sure there were many people who were rich before the French Revolution, they probably aren't now. I'm sure a lot of people made money in during 1920's whose families aren't now.
Even if inheritance grows based on interest, families grow at a geometric rate.
The reason you can't name an alternative to the rich being rich because they are (on average) more productive, because there isn't one.
Instead of answering the question, you've turned it into a circular argument. Here's a reminder of my original assertion:
The rich are rich, because, on average, they are more productive than the poor. Some people may win the lottery and live off the interest, but, in general that is not the case.
I have an open mind to alternatives but you've yet to provide one.
I worked with a text editor in college where upon triggering an unlikely error the user was prompted with the message:
"Are you A) Blind or B) Stupid?"
The user had to pick one to continue.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the alternatives?
I'm sure the last horse drawn buggy maker was the best in the world. Still, without innovation and continued investment, that buggy maker's checks have long stopped flowing.
Even cash in the bank is eroded by inflation.
I would love to know of an investment in which I can put my money and be guaranteed a steady return for the rest of my life, my children's lives, my grandchildren's lives...
Not sure why your post got modded as flamebait. I guess the phrase "NDA provides some balance if it reasonable" seems like an incendiary statement.
To modders: the modding system isn't a mechanism to bury opinions you don't like. From wikipedia:
"Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in."
The fact that the parent is marked as flamebait generally reflects the hostility and lack of understanding tech-types have towards economics and business types.
The only alternatives to my assertion, that the rich are more productive than the poor, are luck and malice.
Certain people at certain times may get lucky via a lotto ticket or being at the right place at the right time. But, in general, luck cannot account for gross disparity between the very rich and everyone else. If luck were the driving force behind wealth, then the wealthiest people in the world would be lottery winners.
Malice. Sure, many rich people are malicious, as are many poor people. But, malicious individuals tend to reveal themselves eventually and alienate those loyal to them. Without the devotion of a workforce there is no opportunity for further wealth creation. Malice, like luck, may work in the short term and for certain outliers -- but it can't explain everything.
As an engineer and a business owner, I never understood the hostility that a lot of my engineering co-patriots have towards business. Engineers should rule the world. We're smart, motivated, and founded in reality -- all things necessary for running a business.
If you're sitting around cursing the rich, yet go to work for someone else, you're a hypocrite. Take the plunge, create your own company, and create your own wealth. If you're smart enough, people will soon be cursing you.
Nope, you're wrong. Its called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Overtime any investment in anything will diminish to zero as the product or service becomes a commodity.
Not necessarily. Someone depressed as a teenager may outgrow it to become a fully functioning adult.
Just because a system exists doesn't make it right.
The problem with communal services is there is never an end to the need. Everyone on Earth could benefit from $1 million / year in free health care. That doesn't mean we should do it.
If it were trivial to get around the inheritance tax then no one would pay it.
The unspoken reason the GPP believes that 90% of your money should go to the government is that he thinks you don't deserve it. He thinks you didn't earn it.
I'm not rich, and I'm not poor. I am smart enough, though, to realize that some people are way more productive than others. Some people feed the herd and some people simply consume.
In general the rich are rich because they contribute a lot of value to society and invest their money to generate future returns. In general the poor are poor because they don't contribute much value to society and tend to squander their income on disposable goods (like alcohol, cigarrettes, and lotto).
There are exceptions. If you collect checks for no work, and create no value to society, those checks will eventually stop and the problem will fix itself.
The reason wealth tends to cluster in families is because intelligence is a heritable trait.
Paris Hilton is an excellent example of why a 90% tax isn't needed. Stupid, worthless children will squander away any inherited wealth quickly and the problem will fix itself.
The money returns to the economy in the form of the purchase of products and service, no government entity needed.
Hmmm, the economy is collapsing because of the sin of "greed". People are screaming for the government to bail them out because of their "need". Huge industries are being nationalized in the name of protecting the People. And now, Ragnar Danneskjold, is terrorizing the seas.
Where have I seen this before?
I'm normally pro-US hegemony and quick to defend our actions. But, I'm about to give a silver bullet to my opposition.
I can't help but notice the parallels between America's situation and Rome during its final centuries. Rome eventually degraded as barbaric pressures from the outside world overwhelmed their ability to control them.
Modern America seems to be collapsing under a similar weight. Terrorism and piracy are equivalent modern forms of barbarism. The fact that the US cannot control it anymore validates the position that the US military is way overstretched and that our empire is on the decline.
Ug.
False analogy. Homosexuality is not incest or pedophilia. Go review your basic logic.
The GP is correct to lump all creationists together into one stereotype and here is why:
If you are a creationist then you believe the Bible is the word of God and God is never wrong. If you believe the Bible is the word of God and God is never wrong then you must believe the world is ~7000 years old as Deutoronomy and Numbers specifically lay things out.
If you are a creationist and do not believe the world is ~7000 years old then you (perhaps unconsciously) reject the Bible as the word of God / reject God as 100% right.
It is Christianity that establishes the dichotomy, not the GP. You cannot walk the fence on this issue and expect anyone to take you seriously as a rational human being.
My mistake, you're absolutely right. It was actually 1997 when Saddam started denying them access to inspection sites and expelled all the US inspectors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/09/qanda.iraq
People who say America deserved to be attacked are the battered wife, al queda is the husband, and you're an idiot.
Let me get this straight, the media says x > y, therefore x must be greater than y.
Don't believe everything you read.
By your own logic sure, I can safely say you are retarded. Its not that I'm biased against you, you deserve it.
Obviously the US won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon and its pointless to talk about it doing so.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, world opinion would have turned against Afghanistan at this point. Much as the French are doing:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12010407
As to our independence, France didn't get involved until they saw the war was basically won, so thanks for being, well, French.
By the way, how is all that stolen Oil for Food money treating you?
The number if people who died is irrelevant. The reason Iraq was justified is that they violated the terms of the first Gulf War's ceasefire.
It took 9/11 to distract enough people from American Idol and get the country behind the invasion. If you honestly thought that the government was telling you the 100% truth leading up to the war, well, good luck in life.