OpinionThe rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. The poor stay poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor.
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-08-12 at 20:54:08   (19 comments)

On 2009-08-12 at 20:54:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is so simple.
On 2009-08-13 at 03:13:37, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The "things that make them rich" are often highly unethical and exploitative of the poor.
On 2009-08-13 at 03:22:13, BorgClown wrote...
Leaving apart good-for-nothing juniors, heiresses and decorative partners, I think DB's right. Also Scarlett's right, a massive concentration of wealth means you're profiting unfairly from the efforts of others. Specially if it's quick, like so many like it. Labs struggle for funding and resources for medical investigation while some elite vacation in boat-shaped artificial-island aquarium 7-star hotels. There's so much money you need to have a wealthy life, and after that, you start to expend it on eccentricities.
On 2009-08-13 at 14:21:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
The "things that make them rich" are often brilliant ideas and efficiencies. @Borg: A lot of extremly wealthy people invest their money in ventures that create jobs. That big yacht building company employees real people. 7-star hotels employee people also.
On 2009-08-13 at 15:55:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
Case in point: Shawn Fanning.
On 2009-08-14 at 01:06:08, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Pyramid schemes also employ a lot of people, but the exploitation is too blatant to be legal. But I think it's fair to be paid much less than the value one produces at work. If we were smarter and more resourceful we'd be better forming new horizontally-owned companies all the time, but then again not anyone could coordinate such kind of communal enterprising.
On 2009-08-14 at 02:17:42, Baslisks wrote...
The rich man can also buy the 110 boots that last years while the poorman can only buy the 20 dollar boots that last months. Meaning that as time goes on the rich man spends less on those boots than the poor man.
On 2009-08-14 at 12:54:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
That comes down to making a good decision. It might be better, in the long run, for the poor man to scrape up the money for the $110.00 boots.
On 2009-08-14 at 12:56:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
@theBorg: the US Social Security program is just a big pyramid/ponzi scheme, but the Dems think it is the best thing ever. Benard Madoff is in prison for doing the EXACT same thing the US fed does every day.
On 2009-08-14 at 14:39:05, Thelevellers wrote...
But the poor man can't live for a month (or 6) with no boots, so what does he do in the mean time? I agreed initially, but I think I may have to think and may well change my mind when I have more time...
On 2009-08-14 at 15:32:32, Baslisks wrote...
The actions of the poor go a long way to support them being poor, though I believe the actions of the rich go much further to contribute to their trouble.
On 2009-08-15 at 07:30:11, BorgClown wrote...
The big fish eats the little one. A lucky few little fish get to grow and be big ones. As obvious as this might sound, there can't be only big fishes. Unless some dramatic progress on the level of the industrial revolution takes place, there will always be a low income majority to support wealth concentration.
On 2009-08-15 at 07:30:43, BorgClown wrote...
Damn, this gorilla makes my rubbish look smarter!
On 2009-08-15 at 07:52:42, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: working on that massive change in manufacturing. Helping to reduce the cost of 3d printing from 2k for a machine to about 500 plus work. REPRAP AND COLLEGE COMBINE!
On 2009-08-15 at 08:05:56, BorgClown wrote...
That's the direction and kind of progress I meant. Science fiction has a few examples of people living off the machines, who do all the industrial work. Unless proven that advanced machines can be self-conscious, I'm OK with machine exploitation.
On 2009-08-15 at 14:41:03, Baslisks wrote...
yeah right now the limiting factor is electronics manufacturing and structure manufacturing. If they could up the production of electronics we could get a couple more machines going for nothing.
On 2009-08-15 at 19:31:35, BorgClown wrote...
If you think about it, the basic means of production have well defined and repetitive tasks. Farming, mining, manufacturing, etc. The only thing that forbids total mechanization is that machines are too dumb to know what are they doing, and the ones who barely do are too dumb to be trusted. Yet.
On 2009-08-15 at 21:00:23, Baslisks wrote...
labor unions are a big limiting factor too. They prevent the true mechanization of processes.
On 2009-08-17 at 18:21:42, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There will always be those who are successful and those who are not. Statistically, you're just as likely to be in the middle than at either end but your circumstances will dictate your success as much as much as your will. Also, no-one should think that money is a pure measure of success. Money is a human invention, and the systems we have are perverted by those who manipulate them. Some monetary systems have intentional depreciation to ensure that money is quickly re-invested, rather than saved. (Others promote the evil of cumulative interest ☺). "It's a sin to judge any man by his post." - St Augustine. http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html