Topic: Irrational 1% Jealousy - page 3. (Read 5465 times)

I live on a 7-8$ a day, and I must say my life is quite enjoyable as of today. And European prices are much higher than in US in many aspects. Talk about jealousy.

If you're talking about evolution and propagation, I think we have moved on beyond procreation/survival of a single genetic line, and into survival of a social group a long time ago. As such, a rich person living in and being a part of a wealthy society (contributing wealth to the surrounding area) creates a society that is able to pass on its genes much more effectively than a poor society. We hear a lot about Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, English, and American empires and their respective lineage, but pretty much never about the poorer tribes that never really went anywhere and died out. Also, it takes two people to create one child in a wealthy society to propagate their genes, while it may take two people to create five children before the child survives into adulthood for a parents in a poor society to do the same. So in that way, money and wealth does have a real impact on existence. On a larger scale, we have money, wealth, and the resulting scientific and medical advancement that it funded to thank for the massive global population spike of the last century.

It's just nitpicking on my part.  The Bible is worth a read-through if for no other reason than to realise how often it is misquoted

That's really embarrassing. I think my point still stands but I stand corrected on the citation. Or rather I slink into the corner and curl up into a little humiliated ball, corrected.

You know, I had a voice in the back of my head that made me go back and add the word "reportedly" there. I thought, "oh, that's not a 'red letter' quote; I ought not claim he said that." I confess that anything that isn't "red letter" kind of blurs together for me. I should have listened more closely to that voice.

Thank you for correcting me.

No one worth mentioning ever attributed those words to Jesus.  You're thinking of Paul. 

OK, at least you brought source material to the discussion. You've missed some critical context though.


It means that trust fund babies shouldn't receive an inheritance unless they can make a living without it. That is perfectly in keeping with your belief that people who struggle to succeed are the real heroes and that wealthy layabouts are a scourge.


Yes, but her entire body of work denounced the corruption of money and government systems that subvert the effectiveness of money as a barometer. If you read the whole passage this is from, it ought to be clear: she's speaking out that money ought to go to people who earn it, not to people who have "connections." She's describing the true purpose of money and explaining how it is being abused and misused.

Again, people get this backwards every time. Rand wrote that if you deserve it you should get money. She did not write that if you have money that you deserved it. Look at causation, not just correlation.


Try this: "run for your life from any poster on Bitcoin Forum who tells you that Bitcoin is worthless. That statement means that person wants to buy it at a lower price."

Note: the people who say money is evil are always trying to take it away from us. What might that mean?

Also (though Rand never made this distinction) "money is evil" is itself missing context. Jesus reportedly said The apostle Paul wrote that the love of money is the root of all evil. When you value money more than to use it as a tool, that is the difference between ambition and greed. Opinions may vary, but I do not believe he Jesus, whose ideas Paul trying to spread, was intended to suggest that money is evil. The whole bit about rendering unto Caesar seems to suggest he Jesus was somewhat indifferent to it. He Paul suggested that greed (again, as distinct from ambition) was evil.

Again, Rand never made that distinction, so I'm not claiming she was defending Jesus' Paul's words. However, I am claiming that what she was attacking was a corruption of Jesus' Paul's words.

It sounds to me as though you and Ayn Rand agree on a lot more than you believe. That is why I am led to assume that you have not read any of Ayn Rand's writing except in one- or two-liners you can find by googling. If you have read any of it, I am surprised at the profound difference in interpretation of its meaning you and I have.

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started."

"Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue."

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter."

No real mention of Darwin in her work - no real science actually. She believes in money above all else.
All these quotes are irrelevant to the palpable reality of our existence as animals.
We are animals. (I believe in science not second rate pseudo literature)

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - eh - ok.
I'll leave alone all living things other than those who have had a formal mathematical education in symbolic logic.
Will she let me stroke my cat though? - I love my cat despite his lack of formal education in mathematical logic.

None of what you say about "Ayn Rand's universe" is supported by what Ayn Rand wrote, so I have to assume that you haven't read any of it.

In Ayn Rand's universe money is considered the function of existence - in reality it's genetics.
The most successful people in the world are not those with the most money, but those who are able to pass on their genetic material.
A personal living in a trailer with 8 children is more successful than than a billionaire.
The whole concept of a rich elite is an American myth - nature will totally ignore this myth.

The elite are those who survive in the most difficult circumstances - not those who manage to survive with a silver spoon in their mouth.

This whole 1% vs 99% thing is bullshit. The problem is *not* the 1%, and most people who clamor for these "rich" paying "their fair share" are surprised to learn how much more the 1% pays in taxes as a proportion of their income.

However, there is a much much smaller group of super-wealthy people who have influence with the government. And "influence" is too weak a word. I think I mean collusion. There are a handful of these people and they have tremendous amounts of money and they pay next to nothing for taxes. Many might not remember Ronald Reagan talking about how it was unfair that a multimillionaire would pay a lower portion of taxes than a janitor, but yes, he said it.

Anyway, the super-rich with influence and the politicians scratch each others backs and manipulate us. They control Fox and MSNBC and set them up to point fingers at one side or the other and get us whipped up into a frenzy against one another. "It's the damn rich people that are ruining everything, and the government should do something to stop them" says one group and "no, wealthy people are great, it's the government that needs to be stopped" says the other.

And as we go back and forth pointing fingers at each other, each side takes PR flak from time to time and it makes it look like we sometimes actually reveal the ugly underbelly. But it's all a sideshow, a misdirection away from the fact that the two groups we're fighting to decide to demonize are on the same team. They've divided us to conquer us and they are super-rich without having earned it.

Deregulating crony capitalists so that they can wheedle their way into more wealth doesn't help. Neither does giving government more power over us all.

We do sort of need deregulation, but we need to have strong enforcement of the regulation that remains. We need fewer laws, but laws which are enforced, and enforced fairly. Undermining rule of law doesn't help, and neither does passing more laws.

Each side has half the picture and won't listen to the other side because they know they are right without understanding that the other side is right too. It's a bit more complex and nuanced than that, but dammit, I'm already long-winded.

TL;dr: if you're arguing whether the "1%" or the government is the problem, you've been hoodwinked by the real villains.

PS Ayn Rand's villains all had much more money than her heroes. How does that fit in with the idea that she idolized the rich?

You know, thus far i've no regrets.  If i wind up with way too much money & my guilt starts quarreling with my greed, perhaps i'll see the virtues of the scrambled apologia you call "worldview," and make it mah own.  Sound like a plan?  

I see you still don't get it, so I FIFY. Besides, you wanted to know what rich people were like. Or, more specifically, you were misrepresenting what rich people were like. And it seems it's impossible to win with you: Either you are an asshole because you are rich and greedy, and are keeping all your money so you can retire safely, or you're an asshole because you give up all your wealth, and end up dependent on the state.

Oh, also, I forgot, did you say that you will give up at least half of your wealth when you are 65 because you will be wealthy? (You said you will be able to live out your life in the luxury you are accustomed to, which would mean you have over a million dollars at that point) Or will you be a self-hating rich hypocrite?

Let me think this through again...  I can have a blast from now 'till i'm 65, at which point i'll be forced to live like you will have enough money saved up to live out the rest of my life in the luxury i've grown so accustomed to, or...
I can scrimp & scrounge until i'm 65, and have a heart attack when some gold-diggin' vixen plants herself on my withered... eww.  I think i'm sticking with what i got, Rassah, thanks for the heads-up

Judging by your tone, you would prefer to live like my poor friends, correct? So, where do you think you and my poor friends will be when you hit 65?



Where do you think my parents will be when they are 65, or where I'll be when I'm 50, spending the rest of our lives doing what we want without ever needing to work again?

Edit:  So let's see, your poor friends drive nice cars, have fancy clothing, dine out & generally have a blast.  Your wise rich friends live as if they were on welfare.  Let's see...  Hard to decide...  Which would i like to be?
I never knew  Ebenezer had a kid

Yep, pretty wretched. This $1,000 is after the thousands they pay in taxes. They don't smoke, they buy cheap food and cook most of it to save money, they live in their investment property, and are putting more into it to increase its sale value. They only use one car, which is over ten years old, mom dropping dad off at a bus station for him to go the rest of the way. They keep the house warm, opening windows, they very rarely buy new clothes and typically shop at thrift stores. They don't have smartphones and only basic cell service. They get health coverage through work, so I didn't include it in the $1,000, but they borrowed a few grand for my grandmother's hospital expenses, and are paying that, too. And yes, they find freebie furniture and other things on Craigslist and when others put them out to the curb. In short, they live very similarly to how other extremely productive millionaires live in the mansions close to their neighborhood. That's how you tell that someone is a millionaire BTW: plain clothes, worn jeans, and shitty old car. Those driving fancy new cars aren't millionaires typically.

By contrast, my poor friends are driving nice cars, have new fancy clothing, dine out at restaurants all the time, have every game system in existence and tons of games and toys, and have almost no money to their name. And THAT is what the difference between rich and poor is in it's entirety.

in general ppl are negative by nature, those that arent and see the light are in 1%

You are still missing the point, but besides that, you've just pointed to the exact reason you'll likely remain living from paycheck to paycheck while the people who spend their money wisely will be working when they feel like it, and on projects they enjoy.

You're either a troll or you haven't left the basement since early 90s.  Your parents, who make 25k, live on 1k a month?  500 bucks ea?  Out of that, they pay taxes (assuming they own a house & not living out of cardboard boxen), heat, maintenance, electricity, gasoline & auto insurance (or do they thriftily bus it?), car expenses, cable, phone, medical (or do they sneak in through the emergency room?), toiletries, clothes (or do they rifle through the boxes left for Good Will?), and -gasp- food?  Just how wretchedly do you live?  

*To bystanders:  This is all happening in US of A, folks!  These people are living on $16 and change A DAY!  I used to spend more than that on smokes

My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too).
As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2802864