Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

poor? Pay up!

<< < (8/9) > >>

CodeTRUCKER:
<off topic> sort of... it has to at least count for a momentary diversion.

Note: Just to be clear, I'm going for spirited discussion here ... I'm not attacking ;)

--- End quote ---
Yoohoo!  I am up for this game!  Saddle up, Hoss!  Here we go!
Pssst!  Just for the record, you used a number of "tricks" here I will not let you get away with. ;) Unfortunately, I am in the middle of proofreading a manual for some aviation simulation software and my time is limited.  You are fortunate I wanted to take a break.  Also, lest anyone think I am trying to justify my own wealth, please note that I am an owner-operator and sole-bread-winner with a very large family.  Anyone who has been following the U.S. economy should readily be able to interpret my class station.   

So, the summation is that generally, the rich are people of intelligence, wisdom and drive and generally, the poor are those that lack these qualities.  There is a direct law of cause and effect at work here.-CodeTRUCKER (May 23, 2009, 04:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a fairly gross generalization.
-Stoic Joker (May 23, 2009, 11:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, it is a generalization and the truth of it is raw,  but how is it "gross," aside from being unpleasant?   

Rich people know how to make money, but that doesn't directly equate to intelligence.

--- End quote ---
C'mon now.  How can the rich "know" how to make money if they are imbeciles?  Does not the ability to "know" something and put that knowledge into practice equate to "intelligence?"  If not, then what would you call it?
Exhibit AA from www.dictionary.com... Intelligence: #1 - "capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."

... Exhibit A: our current economy brought to you on a silver toilet lid...courtesy of "the rich". Wisdom? Please... (pontificating doesn't count, see exhibit A). Drive? Intrepid is one thing, greed is quite another.

--- End quote ---
The problem is now a "gross generalization" of equating "the rich" with "the bad" or "the greedy."  While there are equally unsavory elements in the mix, the fact is that our current economy is brought to us courtesy of the Fed and our gullibility as citizens to let them get away with it. (G00gle: the Power and Methods of a Central Bank).

Regardless of the sphere, we will always have the rich because someone had the pluck to take a risk and convert energy to improvement. We will always have the poor because someone was content to remain in their mediocrity (but if that one is happy, more power to 'em :up:).-CodeTRUCKER (May 23, 2009, 04:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
Really? then why were many of the most important technological advances made by people (Tesla...) that died penny-less? Guess they were to tied up in the whole advance the human race discovery thing to be "plucky" enough to concentrate on what's really important like screwing a nickel out of everyone in sight for a piece of it.
-Stoic Joker (May 23, 2009, 11:38 PM)
--- End quote ---

Now, now... twisting words is not nice. :P  There are far too many examples that you or I can pull out of hat to pursue this to any detail.  I am not acquainted with Tesla, or any of the others you did not specify so I have no grounds there, but if they died penniless the details of the who, what, when, where could have a significant impact on using them to substantiate your point.  Their stories might end up proving mine! 

I do not buy into the whole "global save the planet/humanity/whales/etc." thing.  I see too many quantum leaps to give a lot of credence to them.  I do not have any direct knowledge of the validity of the "experts" or their claims.  I seriously doubt that anyone of either of our acquaintance has direct connections which leaves us with basing some pretty major life perspectives on nothing more than hearsay.  To be sure some of the players in historical societal development may have been of a good heart, but many times when one peels back the covers one finds that there is often a would-be or established power broker that is pulling the heart strings of the naive and impressionable to manipulate them to an end.  Unfortunately, sometimes this goes far beyond considerations of personal monetary position.  A certain Serbian youth and an Arch Duke come to mind; not to mention, a particular anti-semitic.

Also, there you go again attempting to create a wealth =  bad congruence.  Nope, will not work unless one needs a good chunk of swiss.

The rich produce the things and services that add to the necessities, comfort and convenience of our lives.  What has any poor person who sits in the complacency of their shanty ever added to our lives?-CodeTRUCKER (May 23, 2009, 04:19 PM)
--- End quote ---

Actually the rich produce nothing, they merely collect the money for the stuff we poor folk produce. Considering the bar for middle-class has been moved to the six figure range we're on the edge of pricing ourselves into a third world country.
-Stoic Joker (May 23, 2009, 11:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
Wrong again.  The rich did produce something and it was something many people needed or wanted.  They did it well enough that it was necessary for them to grow out of manufacturing and into management.  How else did they get rich?  Fortunately, they also produced some jobs too or else "us poor folk" would not have a place for us to procduce their stuff.

Notwithstanding the shenanigans of the Fed, there is only so much money out there.  People gain wealth by relocating the money from some one's pocket to their own.  Unless you intend to condemn the whole population to Epsilons, you have to give a good deal of credit to the "provider" to produce the commodity and the "consumer" to being able to discern that the commodity is more valuable to them than the money in their pocket which is what causes the money to move from a large number of pockets into one or a few.

Might I also suggest that once again we are seeing a "rich people" = bad motif.  Hmmmm... do I detect a pattern here? :D

I do have to conciliate your last thought here.  Unfortunately, the Fed is poised to allow inflation to do just what you say.

Money is power as it allows the possessor to buy, manipulate, intimidate, influence etc. those with jingle-less pockets.  Is it not a good thing that generally the wealthy are some pretty bright folks with vision, drive and purpose?-CodeTRUCKER (May 23, 2009, 04:19 PM)
--- End quote ---

No damnit, that's the central point this thread started on. Predatory lending practices at all levels are only serving to drive a wedge farther between the classes. Hell poor doesn't even mean poor anymore, its been overhauled (using an income based definition) to mean most of main street! Impoverished or poverty level is the (only) new way of separating ones self from the wineo that spends their days chatting with the box they live in...
-Stoic Joker (May 23, 2009, 11:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
Wrong again.  In the first place, I was not attempting to assign moral quality.  I was stating a fact of the way money affects those that have/have not much of it.  I do not condone it, but the fact is "Predatory Lending" only works because most of the people being taken advantage of do not have the wisdom/discipline to assign "real" value to their money and what they are trading it for.  Further, the overwhelming majority of the reactions (purchase decisions) of the poor population being discussed is motivated by their own greed where the appetite is to live in a fantasy that exceeds their real budget.  If they were content/disciplined to take the givens of their real financial ability as a serious consideration rather than something to ignore in their cost-benefit analysis they would not be taken in by the predators.  The "Pay-by-the-week" rentals could not succeed if they were not able to capitalize on an individual's personal I-gotta-have-it-at-any-cost mentality, i.e., "greed."  So, how can we condone the "greed" of the "poor" while condemning the "greed" of the "Predatory Lenders?"

Perhaps my evaluation is skewed by the fact that I have had the priveledge to know a number of elderly "poor people."  All of them lived in the urban very-low rent districts (slums?).  All of them used a taxi/bus because none could afford cars or decided they were just too expensive to keep just to have a car.  None of them had stylish clothes.  They did not have air-conditioners (even in the hot summers of Central Texas), but some used swamp-coolers, though.  Some had black-and-white televisions, but most left them off because "there was nothing fit to watch!"  Not one had a color set and all the screens were small.  All of them had a smile and kind word, but a lot of their neighbors scowled.  Two of these people were my grandparents and the rest were some of their neighbors.  If you could have seen them you would have most definitley classed them as "poor people," but you would not have wanted to call any of them "poor" unless you wanted to be laughed in your face!  My Dad tried to give my grandparents a little money from time to time, but they never took it because they did not know what they would use it for?  I did not understand that as a child, but I do now. 

Note: Just to be clear, I'm going for spirited discussion here ... I'm not attacking ;)

--- End quote ---
Well, at first blush I was not sure what was afoot, but when I saw this statement it lowered the tension level.  Anyway, I am glad you did go for a "spirited debate!"  I hope you found it to your liking?  After proofreading for a few days it was good to take out the 'ol brain and run it around the track a few times.  :Thmbsup:

However...

I would strongly encourage seeking immediate medical attention for these psychoses of severe anger against the rich and the fear you will not be included in their collective wills.  :P

</off topic>
 

Stoic Joker:
Hm... Okay, the point-for-point thing is fun, but it makes for a messy post ... so I'll try to do this in a single block without missing anything.

Interesting that you used the term "wealth", that actually jugged my memory on a distinction I'd neglected to make.  Cris Rock, in one of his comedy routines, made an interesting (albeit racial) distinction between "Rich" & "Wealthy" (race removed/not relevant here); Shaquille O'Neil is "Rich", the guy that signs his paycheck is "Wealthy".

Now, that being said, the actual numeric distinction between Middle-Class->Rich->Wealthy is neither known or important to me ... It's all above my pay grade. My boss, the lady that signs my paychecks, is (to the best of my understanding...) upper middle-class/rich I have the utmost respect for her & begrudge her absolutely nothing. However she isn't part of the problem, she is part of the old-school self-made types (that still to this day works on the floor if need be), much like yourself ... which I believe is the nerve I hit... :)


(Side tracking a bit) "Gross" does have 2 definitions ... One of which meaning great, large, or maximum i.e. Gross National Product, Gross Vehicle Weight, Gross Tonnage. It's not just a "Who Farted" thing...


So... back to my ramblings. The actual target of annoyance (and most likely everybody else’s) is somewhere between the upper 1% and the pump-n-dump schlockmeisters that are out to make a quick buck on the bodies of others.
The first group (We'll call them "Old Money") has wealth that probably was honestly earned ... by a relative that died 100 or so years ago. The current cream-of-the-crap however hasn't done an honest day’s work in generations. These are the famous for being famous virtually self proclaimed royalty types like Paris Hilton. Ever hear her ass speak in public? ...My freaking dog is more intelligent then she is!

The 2nd group of useless yahoos is the fresh out of college business majors, which intentionally create flash-in-the-pan companies that are sold off for top dollar (to some unsuspecting hardworking clod) that then tank within a year because the fad they were based around faded. Sure it worked great for the first few time, but too many people tried it too many time and it created a nice maelstrom for a lot of the SMB's to get sucked into. Intelligent? (over farming land, over fishing a pond, beating a dead horse, etc.) I think not. A lot of people are well informed and sound good & convincing … but that’s not the same thing as being intelligent, and nowhere near being wise.

The predatory lending thing is just a buzz-word that the media has shoved up our collective asses, true. But it doesn’t alter the fact that business as usual, the way “we” (as a country) have been conducting it, has to stop before it completely destroys us.  Back in the 40s at the end of the war we gave the Japanese all of the manufacturing paradigms that (our “Great Minds” thought were too much of a hassle to bother with) they then implemented and stomped the crap out of us with. Now we are back pedaling trying to do things “their way” in the sketchy hopes of survival (Does the expression a bit too cocky come to mind?).

I’m not equating rich with bad here … I’m just saying if the shoe fits…

wraith808:
Hmmm... my definition of rich vs wealthy is not in the amount of money you have, but how you have to work to maintain it.  For example, Shaquille O'Neal is very much rich, but we won't see how wealthy he is until his career is behind him.  Michael Jordan who doesn't have to do anything at this point to maintain his standard of living is wealthy.

Stoic Joker:
Hmmm... my definition of rich vs wealthy is not in the amount of money you have, but how you have to work to maintain it.  For example, Shaquille O'Neal is very much rich, but we won't see how wealthy he is until his career is behind him.  Michael Jordan who doesn't have to do anything at this point to maintain his standard of living is wealthy.
-wraith808 (May 24, 2009, 11:05 AM)
--- End quote ---
Meh... I think one is cause & one is effect ... but yes I do get (and agree with) your point.

SKesselman:
What do you do if your TV dies and now you have nothing?-app103 (May 22, 2009, 05:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
You do what many of us who have been really poor did, viz. exercise self-control, do without, and adjust your attitude accordingly. Who ever suffered from lack of TV?
-cranioscopical (May 22, 2009, 09:36 AM)
--- End quote ---

TV?  TV???   ;D  ;D  ;D  When I have been without, a broken TV would've been the least of my worries! I didn't have a TV for quite a while, because why have one when you can't even get reception without paying another $40 a month? Not to mention, finding the guilt-free time to watch it, another luxury. Time is money. Oh, and let's not forget the furniture you sit on to watch TV, that is, if you can afford it. Like Chris says, you just deal.

People have their different sets of standards, and to each his own, but...when you're completely without, TV really is the icing on the cake IMHO.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page