I know you weren't accusing me of saying that. And i do agree 100%. It seems that either the poor or the wealthy get blamed. Kinda sick of playing the blame game myself aren't you?

Truth is both can be greedy. It takes less wealthy to be damaging than it does poor though. But you get enough of the poor together and they can be just as damaging...

It is human nature to strive to not only survive, but to get ahead.

This is our blessing and our curse.

Our congressmen/women....lol

Creativesoul, trust me on this, you are not a person to cast comments freely around! In all of the arguments pertaining to money though we can find a reason to justify greed in this equations.

Greed can manifest itself in other ways transcending monetary gain. If a Elixir of Eternal Youth were available at a ASTRONOMICAL cost how many people would do ANYTHING to get at it? Power is just like that as well.

I digress to the "Principles of Rule," "Always keep them hungry but don't starve them. This motivates them to keep working and never lets them get quite strong enough to revolt effectively." Another principle of rule is to keep the population at odds with anybody else other than yourself. A lot of blame game going on, do you not agree?

Any smart economist knows how to profit from another's misery. Take hurricane Katrina. Where did a lot of FEMA Money go? Boob jobs, trips, much more expensive cars. Florida had stores price gouging like mad for everything. Greed runs deep in humanity in general.

Can profit be made from all of this chaos? HELL YES! Money is not the only issue here. Weakening governments is a good start. banks sure could stand to gain more power by taking advantage of the way things are through unscrupulous people (OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA).

Too many economies of too many cities became built and localized on particular industries that had to face a lot of growing changes and very adverse things like labor unions forcing labor rates to climb to excessive levels. Groups like the EPA set standards that are ridiculous in scope and compliance time. Then they are taxed into oblivion. The then the city has to adapt or whither like Pittsburgh did. Pittsburgh used to be a major steel center. Not any more.

Our manufacturing capacities are being stripped of us. Prices have gone up, gas went down but where has the price of everything else gone???

There is a profit of some kind to be had here but the question is what?

I seriously think banks are the NUMBER ONE enemy of the state right now. They have infiltrated government and have been doing illegal sh*t for years. Our so called regulators have been rather impotent lately. Why? I bet the banks have been paying them off somehow myself but that's just me thinking.

Money is just a very effective means to an end.

It is not? Then what is?



This is why it is a drivel. First you question the money as a root of evil, on the same level as character flaws, such as greed. Then, you slide down to something that has nothing to do with money.

O.k. let's go there, if you wish.

Natural selection does not involve money, you say? What do you think it involves? Beating each other sculls with stone age weapons? Huh?

This is where you would need to describe the natural selection and what does it involve today, as opposite to a suggestion that it involves money.

Secondly, you're the one that is bringing in so-called economic classes, as if there is such a thing as a class. It only lives in books of K.Marx and F.Engels. I never agreed with anyone that thinks there are classes. I always say the same thing over and over, and that is there only two classes; dumb-stupid-ignorant-lazy-lying-creepy and normal.

Being rich is not a class, it is a short moment description of a current account, and that is it.

Now, what is that drivel about born rich? Does it matter? Was Bill Gates born rich? How about Warren Buffet? If nothing prevented them from becoming rich in the course of their own lives, then what is stopping anyone born poor from becoming rich?

Not everyone can be Bill Gates? Why not? What is the excuse?

Third, yes, some people are given the inheritance by their parents. How is this not fair? You are given the inheritance of your parents as well. You were born here, not in Somalia. Should you be sent there for the fairness? Inheritance belongs to the family.

What you need to realize is that a father cannot give something to his child, that he had already spent. You can only give what you saved. That means, you are giving something that you have earned, but deferred from using for your own benefit. So, what this means is that since the child have received an inheritance, that means his parent did not use the credit he had with a society, but saved it, in favor of his child.

Besides, money is not the only way we leave inheritance. You have inherited a good health, while someone has inherited bad health, because his parent had decided to spend not only his own health, but the health of his children. The parent was drinking and smoking while conceiving, and now, his child is "poor" in health.

This is all has a direct relationship with natural selection. You can not be an idiot, and expect that your child will have an equal start with someone's who is trying harder. That would be the ultimate unfairness. Everything, every little thing that we do or not do, must and has it's consequences. Sometimes immediate, and sometimes delayed beyond our own life. This is fair. Forgiveness exists only in the Christian lazy mind, as an excuse for slacking.

Now, what did you say about taxes? So, your argument goes that since there is such thing as old money, then not everyone made their money themselves, then they should pay benefits to those who were born poor. And, by the way, somehow along the way, you have forgotten that as you have stated not everyone made his money themselves, meaning that not everyone has inherited it either. So, then there are those who made it themselves, and why are we making them to pay tribute to the poor? Where is their fault?




See? That is a gift, given to them by their (not lazy and not stupid) parents. Do you have a problem with gifts? Do you think gifts should be "deserved"? So, when I give someone a gift, they should be taxed the sh!t out of it, since they didn't "deserve" it?

There are three reasons people can get rich:

- they made it.

- they stole it.

- they have received a gift.

Now, if they stole it, then we already have the mechanisms of dealing with that, it is called justice.

And here is why people are poor:

- they have no interest in getting rich (I have no problem with this)

- their character has a set of flaws.
(This last reason, by the way, includes those who were born rich. Because it is easy to spend the inheritance, if one has character flaws. In fact, it happens all the time.)

Notice how being born poor is not the reason for not getting rich on one's own merits?



Again. Did I say anything about classes? I did not. So, this is something you keep insisting on, not I.

Secondly, yes, I expect that if you deny monetary system of exchange as being natural, then you should at least suggest which one is natural. That is how you "back up" your claim.

And back to your favorite Marxism again with classes.



Suggest what I have missed, then, and I show you where you are wrong.



No, I do not. I am awaiting for you to show me the light. I am open, but very argumentative. I have a natural inbred hate for authority. So, why don't you just show me, why are my arguments wrong.






Because such dependence is quantified in money, and is quantified correctly. You disagree?

Then show me how to quantify it better.

Interesting...

You win!

Someone say drivel?

Suuhhhhh-wingggg-battah!!!

This is a friendly reminder to please refrain from making personal attacks about another poster. Some posts have been edited in this thread for that very reason. Make your points and stick with the topics being discussed.

Site Mod
Pam

And? Where are the ideas? Where is the defense?

All that was an exercise in subjective judgment, and Marxist ideas.

In my experience, I already know, that ALL commies, will invariably either approve a physical force to make others to live with commies, or they will use subjective judgment to describe their ideas.

An example? "FAIR". You will hear that often from a communist, because it cannot be determined what is fair, since everyone has his own, subjective opinion about that.

Compare this with "2+2=4". This is not subjective, because it means the same to everyone capable of thinking.

More examples? O.K. How about "They already have more than they need". This is a typical talking point of a communist, because, again, this can not be measured objectively. Therefore, no one can make a determination if someone has more or lass that what he needs.

What is going on in our current situation is clearly like the story Animal Farm.

Everyone keeps making small exceptions to the rules and eventually everything degrades to totalitarianism and eventually bloodshed.

I see arguments that nogames very clearly and very articulately expresses against the socialist and communist ideals some seem to foster. I do agree with nogames on those scores.

This whole "governmental wealth redistribution" ideology crap is brought to us by banks and spewed as political agenda. Too much deregulation and too much government involvement in social interaction! How is spending way into debt margins going to stimulate anything? We are sliding back into the 1970s again! Then again many of the posters on this site never were born that long ago either.

Obama Carter is going to screw everything up and so far within the first 30 days set the tempo of what his administration's goals are. it is not economic reform he is after, he wants Social Reform to go on instead. it is going to be the Affirmative Action years all over again!

As I've argued with others, though, greed is the base of capitalism. Without it, capitalism fails. Greed = self interest and this is the base of every economic system - some systems just place other values higher than money.

It's not that the desire to have money is bad. Greed in itself is a good thing because it provides motive and drive. Without any drive, you lose efficiency in the system. A lot of what people call greed (i.e. outsourcing to cut costs) have to do with efficiency and is often reaction to the manipulation of the system by the greed of others.

Greed comes from the top and bottom. If there were no greed at the base, there would be no unions as everyone would be happy with what they make. Unions were formed out of the greed of the common people. The early unions were very much justified and their greed was not for material items like money and things but for safety and a limited work week. That is understandable. Now they have all this and they are simply chasing material greed they claim to be fighting against.

The same reason not everyone can drive a Ferrari or live in Malibu: scarcity.

Human ability is a resource just like the earth and water. Not everyone will attain the same skill level required to pull a feat such as Gates, Buffet, or anyone else to come up to extreme wealth from more humble beginnings.

That's not to say not just anyone can be the next Bill Gates, but simply that not everyone can be.

If everyone is special, then nobody is.

Excellent post!

nogames...

You chimed in after my response which refuted the notion of comparing natural selection with the different social classes. Now, I have no problem discussing things with other people, and I suspect that you and I may share more ideas than you think. There are a few things which are problematic to maitaining an effective form of communication.

One, you sidestepped some very valid points all the while using stale rhetoric while claiming that I was giving a subjective view. Everyone gives a subjective view. No one's perspective exactly duplicates actuality. We could debate that in the philosophy forum, if you choose...

Two, if you were not attempting to compare natural selection with social classes, than why did you post in response to my refutation concerning it? Moreover, since you willlingly did, why did you not directly address what I said.

I conceded because you were arguing with yourself, and who am I to get in the way of such a thing? It seems that you are finished now, so I will attempt to give you something to respond to so that you do not have to make things up...



Now, I posted that for a very specific reason, which had nothing to do with you. The bolded at the top and the underlined at the bottom are facts. They are accurate, correct, and logically irrefutable. You may not like it, but that does not change the validity of those statements.

I suggest you read this author's words twice before responding, my friend. Below is an prime example of why I make this suggestion.

You stated this concerning the above...



Here you make up something to argue against, because I did not state that money is the root of all evil. In actuality, I am not even sure WTF you are saying? It certainly is not in response to what I meant, and I meant what I wrote. Remember what I said earlier? We all have subjective perspective, and this is clear evidence of that fact.



Then this? WTF? Seems mighty subjective to me.



You will always win an argument if you continue to argue with yourself... learning something is a little different though.



Uh...no! All I need to do is claim that money is not natural. That is a fact! So then, how can natural selection include money? Should it also include every other man-made tool? How about cars? Screwdrivers? How about synthetic morphine?Come on nogames, if you have a refutation, then make it and quit with the drivel.

Natural selection falls well short of being an excuse for greed.



Good for you! Again, sounds subjective to me...



Filed a tax return lately? Which class did you fall into? Get a grip dude! It is just a word, and I am anything but a communist or a socialist.



You can say that again... some people, no matter how much money they have, have no class.



I answered this already, with valid reasons why I mentioned it. My earlier statements refute the notion that people who are poor are just lazy or stupid.



Why is everyone not Albert Einstein, or Bill Cosby, or Joe DiMaggio, or Andy Warhol, or Leonardo DaVinci?

What are you trying to say dude? Do you have a point to make, or a claim of mine to refute, or is this just an argument with yourself?There are a number of reasons why people have different income levels.



Who said it was not fair? You like arguing with yourself?



This child has no more personal responsibility than one who is born healhy and wealthy... That is my point! There can be and are different levels of personal responsibility concerning how wealthy one has or can become.



What? It is fair for a child to be born to an alcholic father and mother? What are you trying to say? How does money become natural in this process? Is the beer bottle that daddy drinks from natural as well?



If you would read my words closely, you would not have to make things up to argue with.



I have a problem with people who make up things that they can refute, because thay cannot refute what I have written. You completely missed the point Nogames. Had you not jumped in without reading the context being discussed, you would not be confused regarding my claim(s).



What I notice is a priveleged form of shortsightedness...



Then do not jump in!



No system of currency is natural... it is a man-made concept.



It is just a word dude, get over it!



You like to argue with yourself? Of course it is quantified with numbers, how else can we measure anything objectively?

What is your point? WTF does this have to do with the fact that greed has destroyed our economy?

That we are the only major civilized country in the world that does not take care of it's people with a social health-care program?

That there are greedy people who have enough privelege and power to ruin the average citizen while making our country dependant upon those whom you claim to have a disgust for... communists.















Show me a number 2 in nature...



As you sit and debate things within your own mind in an attempt to justify your greedy nature, I hope that you realize that your everyone for themself greedy attitude is what has brought this nation to it's economic knees, and fostered dependency upon communism while putting Americans out of work...

driven...



I think I see the connection that is being attempted. In my eyes, natural selection is something which we, humans, have conquered in some ways. We do not fit the natural selection construct any longer. Our advancements in science and medicine are clear evidence of that. Our social security program has suffered because of that. One could attribute it to our evolutional growth, but one must recognize that we have risen above such a rudimentary concept on many levels.



I understand and agree with this sentiment. Keep in mind that we do not just let our sick and weak die, it is one of the things that makes us different from most other animals in the kingdom.

another "original thought" from the OP

p.s.
Bacon is not safe