Diversity of Everything but Thought

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why the hell would 'possessing the will to limit the success of others' have anything to do with being able?

You are getting yourself confused, Ican.
Cyclo, I think you are getting yourself confused. Possessing the will to limit the success of others limits one's own success, and thereby makes one less able to succeed. My own successes, such as they were, have always been part of the greater successes of others who had more to begin with.

Try it Cyclo! You in particular may very well be amazed how rooting for all others, not just those who you do not envy, improves the quality of your own life. Yes, give it an honest try for a year. Trust me! You will be pleased with the results.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Possessing the will to limit the success of others limits one's own success

Untrue! I don't believe that success is defined as 'having as many resources as possible.' I believe that those who do suffer from mental disorder, and SHOULD be reined in.

My disdain of the rich has nothing to do with envy, that's the part you are getting wrong, Ican.

I believe that if someone has a problem where they focus excessively on gambling, we say they have a disorder.

If someone focuses excessively on drinking, we say they have a disorder.

If someone focuses excessively on sex, we say they have a disorder.

But, if someone focuses excessively on greed, we say that they are... what? Successful? No thanks.

I don't buy into the bullsh!t of the 'economic dream.' So don't sling the 'envy' accusation my way. I'm happy with my life the way it is.

What you are writing are just excuses for upholding a class system based upon economics. You don't really give a damn about poor people at all, do you? The rich, according to you, deserve everything they have, right?

I couldn't disagree with you more on this subject. The idea of what constitutes success and happiness has been so perverted by our greed-based system, that it doesn't even resemble humanity's traditional definitions of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That is one of the profound differences between the left and the right.

The left attempts to level the playing field making everybody equitable in opportunity and resources.
Thus they honestly believe you can improve the lot of the disadvantaged by reducing the success of the successful.

The right believes tearing down the successful improverishes all, and they approve of success, encourage all to strive for it, and try to implement policies to make that possible.

0 Replies

... and convienently forget what happens to anyone who is unsuccesfull; because they DESERVE whatever they get. You left that part out, Fox.

I don't want to derail your thread any farther, though, so I'll stop discussing it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You're making an assumption here, ican about Cyclo's motivation......and this is something you cannot possibly know.....well, other than a general knowledge of how the mind works and I don't think you know a lot about that. In any case, it's rude to assume someone's motivation is envy without evidence and I don't believe you have any such evidence about cyclo. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

You are leaving out the fact that there will always be those that will think only of themselves, or at least first at the expense of others. And when they are smart and have money to make money, they are dangerous to the health of any society.

I once played a game somewhere in which a group was divided into several smaller groups and it was set up so the if the individual members worked together and worked with the other groups, everyone would do well. But there was also a way, if one person or one group decided not to co-operate with the others, this group could develop a huge amount of wealth, making it almost impossible for the others to have what they needed. And there were those who did not trust the good will of the others and some didn't care if they could trust them and they came into opposition with those who wanted to be wise instead of rich. This is an over simplification of an economic network, but it matters not. Even though they knew the others would suffer and they knew they would be disliked by those same sufferers, there were still some people......enough people to create a situation in which the rich got richer and the poor were without what they needed.

Money corrupts some of the best of us. I've been impressed in my life how the desire for money, especially large amounts of money, will cause some people to hurt even those they love. Controls are necessary and it only makes good sense to provide controls that are designed to protect all, not just some.

0 Replies

Think of it this way:

Who is likely to make the most money, over time? Those who focus upon doing so, of course.

Why do they focus upon making money, especially vast sums of money?
Because something is missing from their lives, and they feel that money fills that hole. Of course, it doesn't, and so they strive for more, and more, and more... until money BECOMES the point of their existence.

And you support these people as paragons of virtue? Please! The quest for acquisition of wealth is a mental disorder, and a spiritual one; think about what Jesus would say about rich folks.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That is one of the profound differences between the left and the right.

The left attempts to level the playing field making everybody equitable in opportunity and resources.
Thus they honestly believe you can improve the lot of the disadvantaged by reducing the success of the successful.

The right believes tearing down the successful improverishes all, and they approve of success, encourage all to strive for it, and try to implement policies to make that possible.

The over-simplification in this statement makes it untrue and is an example of how present day conservatives now in control of our government are selling us down the river without a paddle. Over-simplify, repeat it over and over in sound bites on news outlets designed to appeal to those who are too busy or too whatever to remember to question, make sure it leaves out any complexity or any fact that doesn't support the party line, never stop no matter how much anyone objects, deny everything, train others to repeat the party line to everyone they meet, sell it in church and on Wall Street..... it's an example of what happens when there are too few controls.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How exactly does giving more money to the rich, and then cutting programs which assist the poor b/c we have budget gaps DUE to the cuts to the rich, give hope to the poor?

Are you saying the poor should wait for the rich to create some jobs for them, and then they will feel hope? You don't make any sense at all, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not recommending giving the rich more money. I'm recomending the government not take anymore of the rich's individual dollars of income than the government takes from the individual dollars of income of everyone else.

You do understand don't you, that generally more is done for everyone's well being when people spend their incomes on people, than when government spends people's incomes on people?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Think of it this way:

Who is likely to make the most money, over time? Those who focus upon doing so, of course.

Why do they focus upon making money, especially vast sums of money?
Because something is missing from their lives, and they feel that money fills that hole. Of course, it doesn't, and so they strive for more, and more, and more... until money BECOMES the point of their existence.

And you support these people as paragons of virtue? Please! The quest for acquisition of wealth is a mental disorder, and a spiritual one; think about what Jesus would say about rich folks.

Cycloptichorn

Think about what Jesus did say about rich folks. However, cyclo, I don't agree with you that it's this simple either. Not all who are interested in making a lot of money are unconcerned about others. But that doesn't actually matter because it only takes a few. Actually, there is only room for the few who are willing to be as cut throat as they need to be.

0 Replies

Hello.........am I only imagining that I'm a part of this conversation?

0 Replies

Nah, I'm reading ya, Lola.

Quote:

Think about what Jesus did say about rich folks. However, cyclo, I don't agree with you that it's this simple either. Not all who are interested in making a lot of money are unconcerned about others. But that doesn't actually matter because it only takes a few. Actually, there is only room for the few who are willing to be as cut throat as they need to be.

You are correct that not everyone falls under this example.

But, those who are the RICHEST, are going to be the ones who ARE this way. And they are BY FAR the richest. They have gamed the system in order to put themselves on top, and now that the estate and dividend taxes are gone, permanently on top.

Ican

Quote:

I'm not recommending giving the rich more money. I'm recomending the government not take anymore of the rich's individual dollars of income than the government takes from the individual dollars of income of everyone else.

You do understand don't you, that generally more is done for everyone's well being when people spend their incomes on people, than when government spends people's incomes on people?

Your 'flat-tax' proposal, of a sort, isn't practical, because it doesn't take into account the vast sums of money that people accumulate over time. There could not be a proportional tax that is fair, from a real purchasing power standpoint.

For example, let's say Joe makes 20k a year.

Joe's rich uncle makes 20 Million a year.

How do you tax this proportionately, and fairly? You cannot do so unless you take a far larger proportion of Joe's Uncle's money. Not that that matters, as Joe's Uncle still has more money than he will ever concievably need, and therefore has no use for the extra other than greed, which there's no reason to support.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... I believe that if someone has a problem where they focus excessively on gambling, we say they have a disorder.

If someone focuses excessively on drinking, we say they have a disorder.

If someone focuses excessively on sex, we say they have a disorder.

But, if someone focuses excessively on greed, we say that they are... what? Successful? No thanks.
No! If someone focuses excessively on accumulation of stuff (or anything else) we say that they are greedy. If someone focuses excessively on what others have, we say that they are covetous.

I don't buy into the bullsh!t of the 'economic dream.' So don't sling the 'envy' accusation my way. I'm happy with my life the way it is.

What you are writing are just excuses for upholding a class system based upon economics. You don't really give a damn about poor people at all, do you? The rich, according to you, deserve everything they have, right?

I couldn't disagree with you more on this subject. The idea of what constitutes success and happiness has been so perverted by our greed-based system, that it doesn't even resemble humanity's traditional definitions of them.
These bigoted statements of yours, about what you allege I think, constitute a blatant contadiction of your claim: "I'm happy with my life the way it is." Alas, your problem is truly pernicious envy. You are fooling yourself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You don't know what you are talking about, Ican.

You still insist that it is envy that motivates my opinions, and this is completely false.

Pernicious envy, my ass. Come back when you can put together a coherent argument in defense of your side, more than just saying 'you're just jealous of rich people.' If you can't do better than that, there's no reason talking to ya.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lola, instead of criticizing how I am dealing with the thesis of the thread, why not offer your own version? That would be much more constructive.

By the way I played the same game as you described during a two-week intensive managment training school at SMU in Dallas some time back. Among the hundred or so of us participating, some groups did play the game absolutely ethically and some took the initial instructions to 'make as much money as you can' to heart.

When it was over, as you described, some groups were broke and some had huge portions of the total gross resources. And our instructor proceeded to point out that if everybody had played the game ethically, everyone would have come out with the same nice profit.

But as the 'right wingers' in the group pointed out, the fallacy in the illustration was that the ONLY way possible to come out with the most profit in the game was to do it unethically. That is not true in real life where education, skill, initiative, willingness to take risk, striving for excellence, etc. can net the most profit and can be done entirely ethically. And humans being who they are, requiring the playing field to be so level that all expect the same results is virtually certain to ensure that some with play unethically and some will get screwed.

The instructor left muttering to himself.

0 Replies

Quote:

Alas, your problem is truly pernicious envy.

ican,

How exactly do you know this?

0 Replies

Quote:

But as the 'right wingers' in the group pointed out, the fallacy in the illustration was that the ONLY way possible to come out with the most profit in the game was to do it unethically. That is not true in real life where education, skill, initiative, willingness to take risk, striving for excellence, etc. can net the most profit and can be done entirely ethically. And humans being who they are, requiring the playing field to be so level that all expect the same results is virtually certain to ensure that some with play unethically and some will get screwed.

And it is my point, Foxfyre, that it only takes a few. And the few are always with us.

Democrats generally, in matters of distribution of wealth, are for controls and Republicans are against them. Having no controls (except about life style and bedroom behavior) is the exact opposite of common sense. Incidentally, I think it is ironic that those very people (Republicans) who believe we need no controls in business and the media are the very same people who believe people should be controlled about matters of their own personal business. Funny ain't it?

0 Replies

Quote:

By the way I played the same game as you described during a two-week intensive managment training school at SMU in Dallas some time back. Among the hundred or so of us participating, some groups did play the game absolutely ethically and some took the initial instructions to 'make as much money as you can' to heart.

Funny, SMU is where I played this game as well. Only I played it as part of a sociology class and it was more than a few years back. It was 33 years ago, as a matter of fact.

0 Replies

Fox

Quote:

But as the 'right wingers' in the group pointed out, the fallacy in the illustration was that the ONLY way possible to come out with the most profit in the game was to do it unethically. That is not true in real life where education, skill, initiative, willingness to take risk, striving for excellence, etc. can net the most profit and can be done entirely ethically. And humans being who they are, requiring the playing field to be so level that all expect the same results is virtually certain to ensure that some with play unethically and some will get screwed.

I just don't believe that what you wrote, that in real life you can get the MOST PROFIT ethically, is true.

For example, Corportations regularly pay slave wages to workers in other countries in order to increase profit, they fight environmental laws that keep them from dumping chemicals into the environment in order to increase profit, they dodge taxes in order to increase profit. All of these are unethical and all are done on a regular basis.

And, in fact, you cannot be ethical in our modern business environment at the expense of profit without being sacrificed to the shareholders under our Due Dilligence laws. Let's say that the head of xx company doesn't want to outsource their labor to China b/c it's bad for the US to lose jobs. He can't make that decision.

Why? Because it would lower the company profit, which lowers ROI for investors, who can then sue the head of the company under Due Dilligence for failing to provide the maximum return on invesment possible and therefore not managing the money invested in a 'responsible' manner. This has happened a lot.

I would challenge your assessment that the Rich are successfull due to hard work. In the vast majority of cases, they work no harder than poor people and much less hard in a significant number of cases. They have merely capitalized upon either a good idea, gamed the system, or exploited others in order to get their money. There are some caring, giving rich folks who did work very hard for their money and give a lot back, a small number; we call them Democrats.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

I would challenge your assessment that the Rich are successfull due to hard work. In the vast majority of cases, they work no harder than poor people and much less hard in a significant number of cases. They have merely capitalized upon either a good idea, gamed the system, or exploited others in order to get their money. There are some caring, giving rich folks who did work very hard for their money and give a lot back, a small number; we call them Democrats.

Yes we do.

Further, the point of the game has nothing to do with those complicating factors the "right wingers" in your group were so eager to point out. The point is that no matter what (including that the others in the game thought they were disgusting and their reputation suffered) these people still wanted the money, regardless of what it did to them or others. It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... Your 'flat-tax' proposal, of a sort, isn't practical, because it doesn't take into account the vast sums of money that people accumulate over time. There could not be a proportional tax that is fair, from a real purchasing power standpoint.

For example, let's say Joe makes 20k a year.

Joe's rich uncle makes 20 Million a year.

How do you tax this proportionately, and fairly? You cannot do so unless you take a far larger proportion of Joe's Uncle's money. Not that that matters, as Joe's Uncle still has more money than he will ever concievably need, and therefore has no use for the extra other than greed, which there's no reason to support. Cycloptichorn

I define fair as "having the same rules for everyone."

I define unfair as "having different rules for different people."

What's the objective? Pay for government services.

What's the fairest way to pay for government services? Tax everyone according to the same rules.

FOR EXAMPLE:

Rule 1--Taxable income is the difference between gross income and the number of one's dependents times $7,000.

Rule 2--Tax all taxable income at the same rate of 13%.

Let's say Joe and his Uncle each have four dependents including themselves, Joe's gross income is $28,000, and his Uncle's gross income is $28 million.

Joe's taxable income = 28,000 - (4 x 7,000) = $0.00.

Joe's Uncle's taxable income = 28,000,000 - (4 x 7,000) = $27,972,000.

Joe's tax = 0.13 x 0.00 =$0.00.

Joe's Uncle's tax = 0.13 x 27,972,000 = $3,636,360.

Seems fair to me.

Let's do it for Able's gross income of $56,000.

Able's taxable income = 56,000 - (4 x 7,000) = $28,000

Able's tax = 0.13 x 28,000 = $3,640.

I am able to see that is fair too.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know