-->
@janesix
Not sure I believe that, or what that has to do with this conversation.
You’re not sure you believe billionaires don’t spend their money?
Long Conversation
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is a gangster saying 'you don't really know who a man was until the moment he's gonna die or has to undergo blackmail vs bribery pressure.'
The idea being that according to them, the mark of the 'real G' comes down to whether he caves in when he thinks he has a way out of inevitable defeat.
I think there's perhaps some truth to it but all that's revealed overall is the tendency to be resolutely brave regardless of circumstance.
What really, actually, reveals a man/woman's true character lies in how they handle an abundance of the opposite of death; money and power enabling them to be as free as possible.
Nothing at all reveals someone's true character as when they have the resources and ability to use said resources on a scale no average person can. This is where you truly see who the person actually was all along.
For people born into money, it still applies because their predictable use of it is typically linked to predictable personalities.
-->
@Reece101
I don't want to do some research. I am already bored with this conversation.
I will leave one last remark.
Welcome to your new snowflake culture. You made the bed, and now you get to sleep in it. I'm glad I'm old and don't have to deal with it for long.
-->
@janesix
The middle class started to get depleted in the 1960-70’s. And you were saying “poor” as if it’s normal.
-->
@janesix
Wait I think I just realised you don’t understand what economic inflation is.
-->
@janesix
First of all a tu quo que does not exclude you from providing substantiation -
second of all the personal bankruptcy rate of America is more than I need to prove my case:
The homeless population:
And what I'm interested in most - wages:
"The median wage in 2019 is $19.33 per hour, which translates into about $40,000 per year for a full-time, full-year worker." ^
"The median necessary living wage across the entire US is $67,690. The state with the lowest annual living wage is Mississippi, with $58,321. The state with the highest living wage is Hawaii, with $136,437. Other expensive states (unsurprisingly) included New York and California, which have notoriously high costs of living and expensive housing markets." ^
Combined with the rate of inflation:
According to data published by the International Monetary Fund, the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) was 224.92 in 2011, compared to the base period of 1982 to 1984. It is projected that the CPI will continue to rise year over year, reaching 287.51 in 2024. The Consumer Price Index of all urban consumers in previous years was lower, and has risen every year since 1992, except in 2009, when the CPI went from 215.30 in 2008 to 214.54 in 2009. The monthly unadjusted Consumer Price Index was 255.55 for the month of April in 2019.
And you get a bunch of people who can't afford to live in the US
-->
@janesix
So essentially you blindly support the positions you agree with, and have no interest in actually fact-checking them? You furthermore seek to personally insult us instead of proving valid argumentation, quite interesting, and you call us the snowflakes.
If I didn't know better I'd say you were so scared of being wrong you won't even touch research, snowflake, eh?
-->
@RationalMadman
I would disagree; "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" giving people more money than anything they could have imagined will skew the results - masks, restraints ,and the whole lot are a key part of people's personalities.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I've heard that before but real life proves this completely wrong. The reason that cliche is able to be falsely believed is that the bad guys make the headlines while the good guys are just another philanthropist millionaire who are assumed to be using their money for good just so they can tell others they are (so others become numb to it).
If it wasn't for rich and/or powerful people using their power and money for good, we'd still be in ancient egyptian and persian style Tyranny. There's a reason that monarchy isn't the worldwide norm anymore (and it's thanks to powerful people, not random people with pitchforks having angry revolts). Even the pinnacle of 'rebellion forcing democracy' which is France, required turncoats among the powerful.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'd say you were so scared
Ad hominem much?
just another philanthropist millionaire
"DONATING" MONEY TO A CHARITY NAMED AFTER YOURSELF IS THE WORLD'S MOST BLATANT TAX DODGE SCAM EVER INVENTED.
-->
@RationalMadman
You are incorrect - research has shown the truth of the statement:
In his correspondence to Acton (1887/1906), Creighton wrote,I remember that in 1880 I met John Bright at dinner: he was very cross, apparently a cabinet meeting had disagreed with him. Amongst other things he said: “If the people knew what sort of men statesmen were, they would rise and hang the whole lot of them.” Next day I met a young man who had been talking to Gladstone, who urged him to parliamentary life, saying: “Statesmanship is the noblest way to serve mankind.” (p. 370)Our studies suggest that both politicians’ remarks regarding holding a high position in the social hierarchy may have merit. Holding a high position can be both corruptive and ennobling, and the overall effect may depend on which of these two opposing processes prevails.
-->
@3RU7AL
And you have nothing constructive to add; how true to yourself
-->
@RationalMadman
I've heard that before but real life proves this completely wrong. The reason that cliche is able to be falsely believed is that the bad guys make the headlines while the good guys are just another philanthropist millionaire who are assumed to be using their money for good just so they can tell others they are (so others become numb to it).If it wasn't for rich and/or powerful people using their power and money for good, we'd still be in ancient egyptian and persian style Tyranny. There's a reason that monarchy isn't the worldwide norm anymore (and it's thanks to powerful people, not random people with pitchforks having angry revolts). Even the pinnacle of 'rebellion forcing democracy' which is France, required turncoats among the powerful.
plutocrats were the only game in town. There wasn’t a powerful political figure that wasn’t very wealthy.
-->
@Reece101
That doesn't disprove me.
I would say it's safe to say that people who are good at sustaining power are typically good at managing money but the inverse isn't always true.
Money is a means to an end but because money can be used passively to recycle it in a way that power can't (because not only are we all mortal but people who use power to maintain and gain more power in itself, end up resented by the other powerful people over time and betrayed in the end).
-->
@Theweakeredge
And you have nothing constructive to add; how true to yourself
This comment appears to be aimed at the speaker and DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you think linking a piece of reseearch that is playing semantics over what 'power vs control' is, is anything other than proof you don't care what I wrote or even what the research itself concedes?
-->
@Reece101
plutocrats were the only game in town. There wasn’t a powerful political figure that wasn’t very wealthy.
Not to mention, "the wealthy who assisted" were not "helping the revolutionaries" out of the goodness of their own heart, they merely recognized their current positions were becoming increasingly untenable.
-->
@RationalMadman
Plutocrats were the only game in town. There wasn’t a powerful political figure that wasn’t very wealthy.
That doesn't disprove me.
It doesn’t. But don’t try to apply it to todays standards of what we would consider a healthy democracy.
I would say it's safe to say that people who are good at sustaining power are typically good at managing money but the inverse isn't always true
There’s managing money, and then there’s hoarding an excessive amount.
Money is a means to an end but because money can be used passively to recycle it in a way that power can't (because not only are we all mortal but people who use power to maintain and gain more power in itself, end up resented by the other powerful people over time and betrayed in the end).
For the rich money is the means to more money. This is the problem with money in politics.
-->
@RationalMadman
I think that is demonstrates the point that power leads to corruption - it is a basic psychological concept - whenever something is easier to obtain, it is used more, so whenever you have more power, you are more likely to use it - and the rush of never having that power before? That's whiplash. There is nothing semantic about that - just pure research, I would be more inclined to agree with you if you had anything to substantiate your claims
-->
@3RU7AL
Look at that - much more constructive, although it shows a lack of comprehension -as I prefaced it before hand. Either give me the entire quote and account for it, or be ready for this to be a truly unproductive conversation
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that is demonstrates the point that power leads to corruption - it is a basic psychological concept - whenever something is easier to obtain, it is used more, so whenever you have more power, you are more likely to use it - and the rush of never having that power before? That's whiplash. There is nothing semantic about that - just pure research, I would be more inclined to agree with you if you had anything to substantiate your claims
Entrenched power raises barriers-to-entry that keep intelligent, ambitious competitors out of the playground.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would certainly agree that that is one of the contributing factors
-->
@Theweakeredge
it shows a lack of comprehension
Please substantiate this purely speculative ad hominem claim.
-->
@3RU7AL
You failed to quote the entire thing, including the preface of that - it is your burden to demonstrate it's "ad hominem-ness" that includes looking at the context - in this case, literally the entire sentence
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a purely voluntary conversation.
If you would like to ask me a question, I will respond to the best of my ability.
If however you start making ridiculous demands, I will generally ignore them.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you mean considering the entire context of a post before condemning them? Is that "ridiculous?"
-->
@3RU7AL
I demand you to consider the entire context
-->
@Theweakeredge
Speculation about the general mood, mindset, or capability of a speaker is a textbook ad hominem attack.
Any comment about a speaker injected into a conversation is a DE FACTO aspersion on that speaker's argument.
The only exception to this general policy is (IFF) the debate resolution itself is specifically about, "the general character of the speaker" or "the general capability of the speaker".
-->
@Reece101
@Theweakeredge
Let's say you got a very skilled fighter or more, about to either severely damage you or force you to give in to demands unless you obey.
You either need to be (or have present and sided with you) a skilled fighter that can defeat him/her/them or have someone rich, powerful, charismatic and/or smart enough to ensure the fighter is no longer rendered both capable and willing of taking you down.
This analogy applies to so many situations. Power can be, has been and always will be just as defensive as it is offensive.