BF2S Forums What's wrong with being rich?

oug wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, welcome to the real world.  EVERYTHING creates inequality.

Ok just stop. There is a thing called civilization. It is what has propelled us from the laws of the jungle to what we call today a "society". In essence it is what differentiates humans from animals.

In this so-called civilization, we supposedly care about our fellow man, and not just for our own miserable skin. What you're advocating here is that because we can't fix everything so that everyone is the same (which was not what I said - I said equal), we might as well go back to the dark ages. Stronger man wins.

I say fuck that selfish shit. Call me a communist. At least I'm no caveman.


_{although anarcho-socialist or something would be more to my liking}

What he's advocating is that the business owner will always have a high salary than his employee, in basic terms, nothing about "caring for each other".

dan673 wrote:

What he's advocating is that the business owner will always have a high salary than his employee, in basic terms, nothing about "caring for each other".

And I'm not saying they shouldn't. Of course they should. But it's all about how high and how low. Whose work is worth 85 million dollars a year? And who would you have live with $1 a day? It's the paradoxes of our system. The extremes that should not be.

dan673 wrote:

oug wrote:

But it's all about how high and how low. Whose work is worth 85 million dollars a year? And who would you have live with $1 a day? It's the paradoxes of our system. The extremes that should not be.

Precisely, which describes Imortal's point of inequality.

I think what oug is supporting (and what I support) is making sure extremes of inequality are minimized, which can only be achieved through the appropriate social programs.

dan673 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

dan673 wrote:

Precisely, which describes Imortal's point of inequality.

I think what oug is supporting (and what I support) is making sure extremes of inequality are minimized, which can only be achieved through the appropriate social programs.

I never stated that there aren't abnormalities when it comes to people's salaries, and I agree that it is a problem, but this where the role of a free market economy comes into play. One can't truly determine the dollar value another person's work, and this is where we have, and will always have, inequalities.

I'm not proposing that the government determine how much someone is paid.  I'm only saying that taxes differ by income for good reasons...

Turquoise wrote:

dan673 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think what oug is supporting (and what I support) is making sure extremes of inequality are minimized, which can only be achieved through the appropriate social programs.

I never stated that there aren't abnormalities when it comes to people's salaries, and I agree that it is a problem, but this where the role of a free market economy comes into play. One can't truly determine the dollar value another person's work, and this is where we have, and will always have, inequalities.

I'm not proposing that the government determine how much someone is paid.  I'm only saying that taxes differ by income for good reasons...

That's been the basis of my argument...

Turquoise wrote:

dan673 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not proposing that the government determine how much someone is paid.  I'm only saying that taxes differ by income for good reasons...

That's been the basis of my argument...

Ah...  I must have missed that earlier...

Apparently so.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

and this made me laugh...
"Theres nothing wrong with being rich unless you're causing others to be poor by doing so. Like the feudal system.
Oh, and capitalism."

Being rich causes other people to be poor... i did not know that....lmao...

I bet $50 dollars if you take off your shoes they'll say made in china.

Shouldn't people below 5 or 6 be segregated from the rest of us responsible 7+ers.

oug wrote:

dan673 wrote:

What he's advocating is that the business owner will always have a high salary than his employee, in basic terms, nothing about "caring for each other".

And I'm not saying they shouldn't. Of course they should. But it's all about how high and how low. Whose work is worth 85 million dollars a year? And who would you have live with $1 a day? It's the paradoxes of our system. The extremes that should not be.

So you're blaming people for being successful?

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

So you're blaming people for being successful?

I'll say it again. There's honest simple Bill Gates-style success (sometimes) and there's embargo-breaking weapon-selling success. I blame the latter, yes.

And bare in mind, you're viewing the notion of success through a capitalistic prism. If you think about it outside of such a restrictive perspective you will find that this particular kind of success that everybody is trying to achieve in this confined social environment is in fact perpetuating a system that requires most to live in poverty.

Childhood around 4.
Currently about 8.

I don't have any issue with people who are comfortably off, the rich or wealthy.

I do have a problem with greedy people, whether greedy-stupid = poor or greedy-smart = mega-rich.
Take as an example Michael Fuld, the poor guy only took home $500m over five years, even so he destroyed the company which employed him taking ridiculous risks in his search for ever more colossal amounts of money.
Or the CEOs outsourcing everything the China so they can make a few more dollars, at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

Its a shame people are now measured by what they are worth on paper, not what they have achieved in life.

Being rich. Good. Being irresponsibly greedy and 'let's bleed the golden goose dry'. Not so good.