birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-now-controls-39-153013317.html i keep thinking back to a line from a star trek movie where they travel back to the present and explain to a groundbreaking scientist that they now live in an age where the accumulation of wealth is no longer a measure of success. ridiculous.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo...-153013317.html No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 No. Nice argument lol. You have one word. He has a Star Trek episode in which they used a time machine. You got pwned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-now-controls-39-153013317.html i keep thinking back to a line from a star trek movie where they travel back to the present and explain to a groundbreaking scientist that they now live in an age where the accumulation of wealth is no longer a measure of success. ridiculous.... They have replicators in the 24th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Nice argument lol. You have one word. He has a Star Trek episode in which they used a time machine. You got pwned. no, my argument has startling but actual statistics: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats. but what s a few hundred million humans dying of starvation compared to a few million stables of exotic cars and homes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 no, my argument has startling but actual statistics: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats. but what s a few hundred million humans dying of starvation compared to a few million stables of exotic cars and homes? Dude I didn't type that crap about a time machine, you did. Did that Star Trek episode get into how the time machine originally got built in the first place? Was there any investment that came from someone who had accumulated wealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Dude I didn't type that crap about a time machine, you did. Did that Star Trek episode get into how the time machine originally got built in the first place? Was there any investment that came from someone who had accumulated wealth? dude, you're so literal that you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 dude, you're so literal that you're not. I don't get it. But anyway I had your back man. All Tom said was "No" but you said Star Trek said that in the future rich people will be like totally uncool. Just out of curiousness was it Kirk or Picard? Also plus I remember seeing a movie called Trading Places when Dan Ackroyd got poor and Eddie Murphy got rich proving anyone could just get tons of money as long as someone gives them the chance to randomly pick stocks. We'll call that exhibit 2. Us 2 Tom 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 no, my argument has startling but actual statistics: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats. but what s a few hundred million humans dying of starvation compared to a few million stables of exotic cars and homes? Rich people own horses, too. You're better off with that argument, since a hungry person - and I'm honestly just guessing here - would usually prefer to eat a horse over a Bentley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Rich people own horses, too. You're better off with that argument, since a hungry person - and I'm honestly just guessing here - would usually prefer to eat a horse over a Bentley. ok, lets break it down a bit more. would it be desirable for there to be virtually no starving people? could that be possible without anarchy and widespread apathy (laziness).? is a significant part of the hunger problem (if you'll indulge me that it is a problem) the vast concentration of wealth? would that require all people to be within even an 1000:1 income ratio? my answers: yes, yes, yes, no. yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 ok, lets break it down a bit more. would it be desirable for there to be virtually no starving people? could that be possible without anarchy and widespread apathy (laziness).? is a significant part of the hunger problem (if you'll indulge me that it is a problem) the vast concentration of wealth? would that require all people to be within even an 1000:1 income ratio? my answers: yes, yes, yes, no. yours? I didn't read your article other than the headline. Would you be ok if the poverty line for the world was set at 100k a person and everyone was at that or above, if the top earners could make 100's of billions a year? No inflation. You can still get 5 for 5 at Arby's and Little Caesars is still $5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 I don't get it. But anyway I had your back man. All Tom said was "No" but you said Star Trek said that in the future rich people will be like totally uncool. Just out of curiousness was it Kirk or Picard? Also plus I remember seeing a movie called Trading Places when Dan Ackroyd got poor and Eddie Murphy got rich proving anyone could just get tons of money as long as someone gives them the chance to randomly pick stocks. We'll call that exhibit 2. Us 2 Tom 0 picard. to expain, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literal i saw your comment as so (5) that it wasn't (1). maybe i was mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Also plus I remember seeing a movie called Trading Places when Dan Ackroyd got poor and Eddie Murphy got rich proving anyone could just get tons of money as long as someone gives them the chance to randomly pick stocks. We'll call that exhibit 2. The Eddie Murphy character wasn't randomly picking stocks, he was picking commodities. And it wasn't random, he was using his street smarts and understood how the market changes, based on the time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 The Eddie Murphy character wasn't randomly picking stocks, he was picking commodities. And it wasn't random, he was using his street smarts and understood how the market changes, based on the time of year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI4fVgVVpiw Says who, Mortimer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo...-153013317.html i keep thinking back to a line from a star trek movie where they travel back to the present and explain to a groundbreaking scientist that they now live in an age where the accumulation of wealth is no longer a measure of success. ridiculous.... Care to link the original study and show what that study's conclusions are? Would you even understand it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 I didn't read your article other than the headline. Would you be ok if the poverty line for the world was set at 100k a person and everyone was at that or above, if the top earners could make 100's of billions a year? No inflation. You can still get 5 for 5 at Arby's and Little Caesars is still $5. arbys? little caesars? you realize that while our part of the world is generally getting fat, many in the rest of the world are malnourished. and there's plenty of hunger right here as well. you know that one of the reasons it's so difficult to lose weight in the west is that for much of human history food has been scarce nearly universally and we've evolved to slow metabolism in times of scarcity, thus the failure of so many weight loss diets. i think we could do better. do you disagree? i didn't say the solution was easy but i don't think it includes nearly 40% of the worlds wealth concentrated in the the hands of 1 out of 100 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 ok, lets break it down a bit more. would it be desirable for there to be virtually no starving people? could that be possible without anarchy and widespread apathy (laziness).? is a significant part of the hunger problem (if you'll indulge me that it is a problem) the vast concentration of wealth? would that require all people to be within even an 1000:1 income ratio? my answers: yes, yes, yes, no. yours? Yes, no, no, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 arbys? little caesars? you realize that while our part of the world is generally getting fat, many in the rest of the world are malnourished. and there's plenty of hunger right here as well. you know that one of the reasons it's so difficult to lose weight in the west is that for much of human history food has been scarce nearly universally and we've evolved to slow metabolism in times of scarcity, thus the failure of so many weight loss diets. i think we could do better. do you disagree? i didn't say the solution was easy but i don't think it includes nearly 40% of the worlds wealth concentrated in the the hands of 1 out of 100 people. So, you didn't answer my main question but attacked my (what I thought mildly humorous) contention that I was basing the main question on the fact that there would be no inflation. Don't be such a big !@#$. We both know what I was getting at, and you avoided the question because you knew that your principles values couldn't stand the test. Is it about insuring that there is a minimum living standard or is it about spreading the wealth? Answer the question I presented to you earlier, or stfu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 So, you didn't answer my main question but attacked my (what I thought mildly humorous) contention that I was basing the main question on the fact that there would be no inflation. Don't be such a big !@#$. We both know what I was getting at, and you avoided the question because you knew that your principles values couldn't stand the test. Is it about insuring that there is a minimum living standard or is it about spreading the wealth? Answer the question I presented to you earlier, or stfu. sharing the resources. It's not either/or. You can incentivize hard work without starving people. The carrot is mightier than the stick. But does it need to be such a huge carrot for so few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 sharing the resources. It's not either/or. You can incentivize hard work without starving people. The carrot is mightier than the stick. But does it need to be such a huge carrot for so few? That's it. I'm done. You've answered my question, but without doing it directly. What you are is not a humanitarian. You really don't give a schit about the starving or undernourished people. If you did you would have jumped up in glee that every person could have a chicken in every pot, lobster in the freezer and at least an Acura in every driveway. No, you chose the scenario that it's better that everbody eats turkey hotdogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts