this make me cry..
personally i m poor :)and i m happy ..
Topic: Why we give respect to Rich and no-respect to poor? - page 4. (Read 9066 times)
The king works a lot more than 12 hours a day, so the king is the hardest worker in your comparison.
Kids don't work in china, they go to school, just like in the west.
And the wealth is not as unbalanced as you think, and it is constantly getting more even, due to capitalism actually. This is my evidence, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost halved.
Here is an ignorance survey for USA http://www.gapminder.org/news/ignorance-survey-in-the-usa-2013/#.VAb8pWM4jIU
And here you can find the same thing for Sweden and Norway, pretty much the same results, http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Novus-Gapminder-Ignorance-Survey-SWE-NO-nov_dec_20131.pdf
Kids don't work in china, they go to school, just like in the west.
And the wealth is not as unbalanced as you think, and it is constantly getting more even, due to capitalism actually. This is my evidence, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost halved.
Here is an ignorance survey for USA http://www.gapminder.org/news/ignorance-survey-in-the-usa-2013/#.VAb8pWM4jIU
And here you can find the same thing for Sweden and Norway, pretty much the same results, http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Novus-Gapminder-Ignorance-Survey-SWE-NO-nov_dec_20131.pdf
not sure if trolling or just stupid
The best way is to work and spend a % of ur money in btc.
Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.
As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.
The king works a lot more than 12 hours a day, so the king is the hardest worker in your comparison.
Kids don't work in china, they go to school, just like in the west.
And the wealth is not as unbalanced as you think, and it is constantly getting more even, due to capitalism actually. This is my evidence, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost halved.
Here is an ignorance survey for USA http://www.gapminder.org/news/ignorance-survey-in-the-usa-2013/#.VAb8pWM4jIU
And here you can find the same thing for Sweden and Norway, pretty much the same results, http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Novus-Gapminder-Ignorance-Survey-SWE-NO-nov_dec_20131.pdf
Kids don't work in china, they go to school, just like in the west.
And the wealth is not as unbalanced as you think, and it is constantly getting more even, due to capitalism actually. This is my evidence, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost halved.
Here is an ignorance survey for USA http://www.gapminder.org/news/ignorance-survey-in-the-usa-2013/#.VAb8pWM4jIU
And here you can find the same thing for Sweden and Norway, pretty much the same results, http://www.gapminder.org/GapminderMedia/wp-uploads/Novus-Gapminder-Ignorance-Survey-SWE-NO-nov_dec_20131.pdf
Beside those who are born into upper class, it takes a great amount of hard work and sacrifice to get to the top.
Something not everyone willing to do. Hence the respect.
Something not everyone willing to do. Hence the respect.
this myth is so bad
do you think the children in china are poor because they are not working hard enough? aren't they making enough sacrifice?
the wealth in the world is unbalanced big time and rich people are not hard workers, at all.
rich people are often lazy and only worked relatively hard for a small amount of time (if at all) so that they never have to work again in their lives.
Who works harder: the king of the netherlands, 'earning' €800k tax free annually, or a kid making iphones 12 hours a day for a few dollars? Now who earns more respect?
you don't get rich from working hard, working hard only keeps the rich richer, that is, by your work you support the rich.
Face it, most people work for a boss, while the boss works for a large corporation. The ones really making a profit of all that hard work are the stock holders that own shares of that corporation. The only way to get rich is own (part) of a corporation. Or be born into it. Or be fricking smart and invent something like twitter or facebook (which is semi-hard work, for a couple of month/years).
Because they think they deserve it. "Oh, he deserves to be poor, its their fault". This along with the hope of poor people to get rich, constitute the fundamental pillar to keep the capitalism scam going.
exactly,
even though most people are worse of n capitalism (by design), many of them support it, in the hopes of ever becoming the top of the food chain (no matter how unlikely), and the ones that do not support it because they are so far down the chain they can't ever hope to be even somewhere near the middle, they are too poor to matter anyway.
Also, a lot of propaganda against anything that undermines capitalism.
There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
If he can't spend the money he owns, because locked away from his stupidity, then I don't understand why you classify him as rich.
Either you can spend and you are rich, or you can't and it means the money does not belong to you.
Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.
He will loose it as quickly as he earned it if his brains don't follow.Maybe "locked" is the wrong word, they do get to use the money, they just don't get to do it as they please.
Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.
As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.
I did not think any kind of socialism was possible at the level of the state without coercion, what form of socialism do you mean ?
Union labor is a kind of socialism without coercion (only if they don't depend on government subsidies, and don't blackmail people that does not join them), which is good.
But I can't see how such thing would work at the level of a state. Any good reading ?
Yes, there are such forms of socialism. The distinction is between State Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) and Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). Trade unionism/anarcho-syndicalism generally fall under the latter categorization.
There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
If he can't spend the money he owns, because locked away from his stupidity, then I don't understand why you classify him as rich.
Either you can spend and you are rich, or you can't and it means the money does not belong to you.
Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.
He will loose it as quickly as he earned it if his brains don't follow. 
Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.
There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.
As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.
hi actually i m not a newbie but newbie in forum 
people love rich and give all respect to them if rich wants they give them ther A** without any reason but the reason behind will be money..
the community only love rick why not poor ,,, poor deserve`s more respect ... poor have much more peace in them expect rich ...
if rich wants help everyone help them if poor wants no one help expect few people
please give me some predictions
people love rich and give all respect to them if rich wants they give them ther A** without any reason but the reason behind will be money..
the community only love rick why not poor ,,, poor deserve`s more respect ... poor have much more peace in them expect rich ...
if rich wants help everyone help them if poor wants no one help expect few people
please give me some predictions
Well, thats the world think nowadays. Maybe they are thinking that poor people tends to do harmful stuff for a little money. They just avoid them or what. Have you watched a clip about this? They dressed a homeless man and groomed him like a rich guy. Placed the man in front of a coffee shop and asked for money from the people. He was given a lot. And then the crew dressed him in his homeless man clothes and put him again on the same spot, people avoided him. Check that out in youtube.
Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.
As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.
I did not think any kind of socialism was possible at the level of the state without coercion, what form of socialism do you mean ?
Union labor is a kind of socialism without coercion (only if they don't depend on government subsidies, and don't blackmail people that does not join them), which is good.
But I can't see how such thing would work at the level of a state. Any good reading ?
Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.
As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.
Because that is what capitalism does (right or wrongly). Money = you are worthy, no money = you are not worthy.
Couldn't agree more.
Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.
This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hardI'd like some of what you're smoking.
Putting aside the question of where their capital originated from.... the very idea that wealth is "inherited" is at odds with the idea of "working hard." Some people are just born into money, and they are lazy as hell.
No man can be smaller that its money. (Atlas shrugged
)If money comes into the hand of the lazy, then it will flee from its hand, no need for government intervention to take it from its hand by force to redistribute.
A fat purse quickly empties if there be no golden stream to refill it. (Richest man in babylon)
The man smaller than his money finish on crack, killed, abused, looted, and find that nothing can buy a purpose, so he will often be prone to depression.
Having too much money when you are not as great to make it is a curse.
So yes, you become wealthy by working hard and, I will add, for yourself. You can inherit the money, but I don't see what to envy to the dumb that can't make it that would justify coercion.
Maybe society should make the difference between rich and wealthy.
You can't inherit wealth, but you can inherit large sum of money.
Being wealthy is the power to attract money without coercion, so by definition a wealthy person becomes rich.
Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.
This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hardI'd like some of what you're smoking.
Putting aside the question of where their capital originated from.... the very idea that wealth is "inherited" is at odds with the idea of "working hard." Some people are just born into money, and they are lazy as hell.
Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.
This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hard, and building your money and having others work for you. If everyone that was rich was a scammer then no one would want to do business with them.
Radom Ramble:
In a Capitalist society, "Rich" normally = abundant wealth, (howsoever derived,) plentiful access to funds, being seen as successful based on the "stuff" you can afford to buy, the house you live in, cars you drive etc, etc...
And, no doubt, because of the way we are conditioned in a Capitalist society, we all mostly see these things as a marker of being "successful" because we have been conditioned to do so - its seen as, and feels, well, natural.
As an older, "successful" person, my own personal opinion is that the definition of "successful" should not be determined by governments, or even society, based on how "they" see you. You should set your own markers. Being "Rich" - (ie: having lots of money, or things,) does not make an individual "Rich" imo, although, I guess many people consider this to be the case...
My point is - happiness is everything, fiscal wealth means diddly squat in at the end of the day. Being content, loved and happy is far more valuable than being "Rich". Trust me, I know. Find your own route to happiness - it may not be money-based, or bitcoin based, however much you think it might be..!
Set your own "Rich" - and you might find you already have more than you think...!
(In the meantime, Bitcoin is the future, and long may it live and make us all "happy"!)
In a Capitalist society, "Rich" normally = abundant wealth, (howsoever derived,) plentiful access to funds, being seen as successful based on the "stuff" you can afford to buy, the house you live in, cars you drive etc, etc...
And, no doubt, because of the way we are conditioned in a Capitalist society, we all mostly see these things as a marker of being "successful" because we have been conditioned to do so - its seen as, and feels, well, natural.
As an older, "successful" person, my own personal opinion is that the definition of "successful" should not be determined by governments, or even society, based on how "they" see you. You should set your own markers. Being "Rich" - (ie: having lots of money, or things,) does not make an individual "Rich" imo, although, I guess many people consider this to be the case...
My point is - happiness is everything, fiscal wealth means diddly squat in at the end of the day. Being content, loved and happy is far more valuable than being "Rich". Trust me, I know. Find your own route to happiness - it may not be money-based, or bitcoin based, however much you think it might be..!
Set your own "Rich" - and you might find you already have more than you think...!
(In the meantime, Bitcoin is the future, and long may it live and make us all "happy"!)
Jump to: