The problem with the "rising tide lifts all boats" cliche is that some boats have holes in the bottom.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Man, I wish the poor would stop whining...
Man, I wish the poor would stop whining...Follow
No. Your example was flawed.
False.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
No. Your example was flawed.
False.
Well.... Since you've presented us with such a rock-solid argument.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
A significant portion of the richest of the rich get that way through "incentives" and "bonuses". Take Adobe's CEO for example, or the CEO of U.S. Bancorp. I'm not saying this represents the majority, but I find it a bit ridiculous when someone's bonus pay exceeds their annual salary, especially when the bonus pay is 5 times their salary. 
Regulation could easily solve that problem, I think.
Edit: Sorry, didn't see the 4 pages when I posted. Sorry if I'm duplicating something that's been said.
Edited, Apr 11th 2008 6:24pm by BrownDuck
Regulation could easily solve that problem, I think. Edit: Sorry, didn't see the 4 pages when I posted. Sorry if I'm duplicating something that's been said.
Edited, Apr 11th 2008 6:24pm by BrownDuck
BrownDuck the Shady wrote:
A significant portion of the richest of the rich get that way through "incentives" and "bonuses". Take Adobe's CEO for example, or the CEO of U.S. Bancorp. I'm not saying this represents the majority, but I find it a bit ridiculous when someone's bonus pay exceeds their annual salary, especially when the bonus pay is 5 times their salary.
So what? If a board of directors (who are the majority stockholders and therefore have a direct vested interest in the financial health of the business), choose to pay that much to a CEO, isn't that their choice to make? Who are you to say that they can't do this?
Quote:
Regulation could easily solve that problem, I think.
What problem? How does this hurt anyone else? That's the correlation that I keep asking you guys to prove, but no one's done it yet. No one's shown me why increased "wealth" at the top end hurts anyone else. I've presented many arguments as to why and how it helps everyone else (ie: collected wealth is necessary for R&D of "new things" that improve our lives over time). Where is the counterargument. You're all proceeding from an assumption that money at one end is taken from the other, but you haven't supported that.
More importantly, when we get to the issue of "taxes on the rich", we find that we cripple the middle class with those taxes long before we put a dent in the very people we claim we're targeting with the taxes. I've presented this argument in the past as well, and no one's adequately refuted that either.
I know that being "angry at the rich" seems like a wonderful way to show you care about the poor, but it really isn't the problem. If we were living in a feudal economy, you'd have a point since wealth was a zero sum game back then. But what we measure as "wealth" today isn't zero sum anymore. It hasn't been for the last couple centuries or so. Arguing the "rich steal from the poor" position in a modern economy is incredibly wrong. It appears "right". It's simplistic. It makes people feel good about themselves. But it's based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of modern economic systems and just plain doesn't hold up.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck the Shady wrote:
A significant portion of the richest of the rich get that way through "incentives" and "bonuses". Take Adobe's CEO for example, or the CEO of U.S. Bancorp. I'm not saying this represents the majority, but I find it a bit ridiculous when someone's bonus pay exceeds their annual salary, especially when the bonus pay is 5 times their salary.
So what? If a board of directors (who are the majority stockholders and therefore have a direct vested interest in the financial health of the business), choose to pay that much to a CEO, isn't that their choice to make? Who are you to say that they can't do this?
Quote:
Regulation could easily solve that problem, I think.
What problem? How does this hurt anyone else? That's the correlation that I keep asking you guys to prove, but no one's done it yet. No one's shown me why increased "wealth" at the top end hurts anyone else. I've presented many arguments as to why and how it helps everyone else (ie: collected wealth is necessary for R&D of "new things" that improve our lives over time). Where is the counterargument. You're all proceeding from an assumption that money at one end is taken from the other, but you haven't supported that.
More importantly, when we get to the issue of "taxes on the rich", we find that we cripple the middle class with those taxes long before we put a dent in the very people we claim we're targeting with the taxes. I've presented this argument in the past as well, and no one's adequately refuted that either.
I know that being "angry at the rich" seems like a wonderful way to show you care about the poor, but it really isn't the problem. If we were living in a feudal economy, you'd have a point since wealth was a zero sum game back then. But what we measure as "wealth" today isn't zero sum anymore. It hasn't been for the last couple centuries or so. Arguing the "rich steal from the poor" position in a modern economy is incredibly wrong. It appears "right". It's simplistic. It makes people feel good about themselves. But it's based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of modern economic systems and just plain doesn't hold up.
Eh, I'm not really up for this right now, Gbaji. I don't think anybody deserves bonus pay greater than or equal to their salary, with the exception of maybe active duty military. But that's my opinion, and I don't really care if you like it. Argue away....
BrownDuck the Shady wrote:
Eh, I'm not really up for this right now, Gbaji. I don't think anybody deserves bonus pay greater than or equal to their salary, with the exception of maybe active duty military. But that's my opinion, and I don't really care if you like it. Argue away....
Again. Who are you to say what this CEO "deserves"? It's not your money! It's their's to make this decision with.
If you and a group of your friends go on a trip to Vegas, and then pool your money together and hand it to one friend to gamble with because he's a good poker player, and he wins the big jackpot and earns you all a million dollars, shouldn't you have the right to decide to give your friend a big chunk of cash as a reward for this?
More to the point, what would you think of some random person on the street insisting that he didn't deserve the money you choose to give him? You'd think they need to mind their own freaking business, right? Same deal here. It's not your money. You can argue all day long about whether you think that CEO "deserved" that bonus, but at the end of the day you have absolutely no right to impose your opinion on those who actually own the right to make that decision.
Property rights are the cornerstone of a free society. I'm frankly baffled when people start trying to argue that they should be able to tell others what to do with their own money. Should I have the right to tell you whether you can buy a TV or not? Maybe I think that car you're looking at is too expensive. Heck. You're just wasting that money you spent going to the movies, I should make that illegal too! You could have spent that money on something I think is more important...
They and they alone have the right to make that decision. You certainly do not have any say in it, nor should you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well.... Since you've presented us with such a rock-solid argument.
Correct.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
If you and a group of your friends go on a trip to Vegas, and then pool your money together and hand it to one friend to gamble with because he's a good poker player, and he wins the big jackpot and earns you all a million dollars, shouldn't you have the right to decide to give your friend a big chunk of cash as a reward for this?
You're right. He would return exactly what their investment was and keep the rest.
If you and a group of your friends go on a trip to Vegas, and then pool your money together and hand it to one friend to gamble with because he's a good poker player
Here's the problem, most CEO's aren't "good poker players" They're just paid by boards full of other CEO's in a giant nepotism spiral.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Oh for Christ's sake, only total bastards who have drunk the koolaid would actually worry about the rights of very rich people to get their multi-million bonuses on top of their stock options and salaries in an economy when the average person's earnings are declining.
I mean seriously, how much can one person buy into the kind of sh*t the very rich want us all to believe to prevent anyone from possibly passing any type of law, restriction, measure that would decrease their wealth at all?
There should be a salary and bonus limit and after that, I should have the right to kick their asses and redistribute their @#%^ing unearned wealth.
As far as gbaji's economic theories, I have heard nothing ever that supports his contention that unfettered access to huge wealth for a small percentage of people benefits society. It does, however, benefit the people that run the country and the media, so maybe that's why it is repeated enough that some people believe it.
Edited, Apr 11th 2008 10:10pm by Annabella
I mean seriously, how much can one person buy into the kind of sh*t the very rich want us all to believe to prevent anyone from possibly passing any type of law, restriction, measure that would decrease their wealth at all?
There should be a salary and bonus limit and after that, I should have the right to kick their asses and redistribute their @#%^ing unearned wealth.
As far as gbaji's economic theories, I have heard nothing ever that supports his contention that unfettered access to huge wealth for a small percentage of people benefits society. It does, however, benefit the people that run the country and the media, so maybe that's why it is repeated enough that some people believe it.
Edited, Apr 11th 2008 10:10pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Commander Annabella wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, only total bastards who have drunk the koolaid would actually worry about the rights of very rich people to get their multi-million bonuses on top of their stock options and salaries in an economy when the average person's earnings are declining.
Because their rights in this regard are the same as your rights. Legally, there is no fundamental difference between a board of directors choosing to give a CEO a bonus, then you choosing to buy a nice gift for a friend. Or deciding to spend your money on a night out, or to buy a new TV, or a new car.
I can make exactly the same argument you are making and say that it ought to be illegal for you to spend that money as long as there are poor people who need it more. I'm quite sure you'd consider that a violation of your rights though...
Quote:
I mean seriously, how much can one person buy into the kind of sh*t the very rich want us all to believe to prevent anyone from possibly passing any type of law, restriction, measure that would decrease their wealth at all?
But the proof needs to go the other way. I don't need to prove why we shouldn't pass said laws/restrictions. You need to prove why we should! Ultimately, owning property/wealth is a protected right. You need to justify to me why it's ok to take that right away from some people. You still haven't done this. No one has. You all keep progressing as though it's just understood that it's somehow "wrong" for rich people to keep their own money, but you haven't proven that.
Quote:
There should be a salary and bonus limit and after that, I should have the right to kick their asses and redistribute their @#%^ing unearned wealth.
Why? I'm serious here. Why should there be these things? What benefit to they serve? How does this help us? You keep insisting that these things should be, but haven't said *why* they should. When we're talking about taking away people's rights, I think we should have a really good reason. If you can't explain this beyond just getting more and more upset when others don't agree with you, maybe it's a hint that you don't really have a good reason in the first place? Just a thought...
Quote:
As far as gbaji's economic theories, I have heard nothing ever that supports his contention that unfettered access to huge wealth for a small percentage of people benefits society. It does, however, benefit the people that run the country and the media, so maybe that's why it is repeated enough that some people believe it.
First off. I disagree with the "unfettered" line. That's a strawman waiting to happen. We're not talking about *no* government regulation. We're talking about whether government should be able to legislatively control how much someone can be paid for something. There's a whole range of "fettering" between that an "unfettered" and it's unfair to imply otherwise.
Having clarified the point at hand, I've given numerous examples of how allowing capitalism (including the right to pay what you want for something, no matter how outrageous that may appear to a third party) has produced massive benefits to all of us, even those not directly affected by the decision.
Quick and easy examples are things like home computers, cell phones, DVD and CD players. Every single one of those things is in your home because a group of very wealthy people were allowed to increase their wealth by choosing to invest it in new technologies and product development. Every single one. No one would spend money to make a cell phone with a 6 hour talk time that can play music and videos and fit in the palm of your hand without a profit motive. No one. Certainly, not the government.
I'm just amazed you can continue to argue this point. The proof of the beneficial effects of capitalism are literally all around you. Unless you live in a cave somewhere, you basically can't look in any direction without seeing those benefits. You don't make any more money then someone working the same or similar job did 40 years ago, yet you have these things that that person didn't have. How did that happen? Capitalism.
I know. It's a hard pill to swallow when you've been taught to hate the rich. But that's the cold truth. The very process that makes rich people richer *also* provides you with all of the life improving devices you have in your life. Everything from the clothing you wear, to the car you drive, to the computer you are reading this on is a direct result of applied capitalism. How anyone can sit around today and deny this is mind-boggling...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The very process that makes rich people richer *also* provides you with all of the life improving devices you have in your life.
False.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
False
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Quote:
False
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Ahh..my new friend. Let me fill you in. They only count if they come from Smash. For the rest of us poor slubs.....
lol
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
False
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Wait.. Single word posts actually count on these forums? I'd have a lot higher post count if I had known I could do that.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Why do AlexanderofAsura and cpllrkejrlkej follow eachothers posts in every thread?
Hmmm
I would guess because we both share interests in the same threads and then feel the need to respond to what the other says sometimes.
Quote:
Why do AlexanderofAsura and cpllrkejrlkej follow eachothers posts in every thread?
Umm..are you following me. Only happened twice that I know of. Why don't you go search the other threads and find another example to show me since you seem to be more interested in it than I do.
cpcjlc wrote:
Why don't you go search the other threads and find another example to show me since you seem to be more interested in it than I do.
I'm more interested in outing a sockpuppet than the person who may or may not be the sockpuppet? Well that's a startling revelation.
Hate to ruin your day, but I'm not a sock puppet, nor do I have one. But hey, here is an idea. At least try to know whats going on before you open your mouth.
Hey, there are a few threads where I said something before you did. Are you my secret sockpuppet?
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:13am by cpcjlc
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:14am by cpcjlc
Hey, there are a few threads where I said something before you did. Are you my secret sockpuppet?
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:13am by cpcjlc
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:14am by cpcjlc
I think this is the first time I have gotten called a sockpuppet. Anyways though I can assure you I am not sockpuppet, whether you believe that or not is up to you. High five though to cpcjlc for posting after me and keeping up the paranoia though.. hehe.
Edit: and even more, I post right after him again.
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:14am by AlexanderrOfAsura
Edit: and even more, I post right after him again.
Edited, Apr 12th 2008 12:14am by AlexanderrOfAsura
#174REDACTED,
Posted: Apr 11 2008 at 8:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I know! Alexander and I must be evil twins. Look. We edited at a the same time. OHHHHHHHHH. The conspiracy abounds.
#175REDACTED,
Posted: Apr 11 2008 at 8:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think we might need a poll for this. Cpcjlc and AlexanderrOfAsura: Sockpuppet/Puppeteer? Evil twins? Clones? Vote now!
Apparently I'm supposed to "know what is going on" before I post a suspicion? Kinda defeats the point of having a suspicion,doesn't it?
I'm not going to use the tired somebody touched a nerve!! line, but you are getting awfully worked up about this.
Edit: And your little tantrums are doing nothing to assuage my suspicion in the first place.
Edited, Apr 11th 2008 11:22pm by trickybeck
Recent Visitors: 257
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (257)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Man, I wish the poor would stop whining...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC