Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do richer people have it better?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always thought I was pretty comfortably placed in my economic standing. Like , 'It's my father's money anyway, does it really matter.' And I really didn't think it did.

But lately, I have noticed that most of the people at the 'higher ladder' of success are invariably rich. Its not even because they are pulling strings or anything, its just because BECAUSE of the money they have, they have these cool life experiences that let them gain SO much of cool knowledge and place them at a better social standing. Like this place I've been going to lately, it chose 15 people from all over the country, and I thought I was pretty lucky to be selected and stuff, but the more I go there, the more I realize that the people there are... rich. Like filthy rich. Like expat parents and huge estate owner rich. And its interesting because 14 out of 15 people being filthy rich signifies a highly positive correlation between money and success.

It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon. Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Just throwing it out there. I found it fascinating.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 2:58:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Money does make some things easier, like travel and social opportunities -but in the same rite it makes other things harder (like having greedy worthless relatives who will fight until they reach their own graves for an inheritance they have no proper claim to).

Also, rich kids (as in people who never worked to earn their money and the social status that comes with it) tend to be the worst people to work and interact with -even more so than the nouveau riche.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 3:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:58:54 PM, YYW wrote:
Money does make some things easier, like travel and social opportunities -but in the same rite it makes other things harder (like having greedy worthless relatives who will fight until they reach their own graves for an inheritance they have no proper claim to).

Also, rich kids (as in people who never worked to earn their money and the social status that comes with it) tend to be the worst people to work and interact with -even more so than the nouveau riche.

That's was what I thought initially, but I'm not so sure now. How much of that dislike is genuine dislike and how much of it is the 'envy' factor? I'm interested because I realised I've never actually seen a genuinely 'spoilt brat' except in TVs and stuff. Would you entertain the theory that there is goodness in everyone of the individual, and as far as you don't initiate a negative interaction, people are pretty nice?

I know it sounds far fetched, but I don't know, I've been thinking along these lines recently. Maybe my experiences have been sheltered. Do you know genuinely 'I have so much of money' people?
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 3:41:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 3:11:18 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:58:54 PM, YYW wrote:
Money does make some things easier, like travel and social opportunities -but in the same rite it makes other things harder (like having greedy worthless relatives who will fight until they reach their own graves for an inheritance they have no proper claim to).

Also, rich kids (as in people who never worked to earn their money and the social status that comes with it) tend to be the worst people to work and interact with -even more so than the nouveau riche.

That's was what I thought initially, but I'm not so sure now. How much of that dislike is genuine dislike and how much of it is the 'envy' factor? I'm interested because I realised I've never actually seen a genuinely 'spoilt brat' except in TVs and stuff.

You should go drinking in Georgetown, lol. There are exceptions to the rule, and most do eventually grow out of it, but there are observable patterns of parental failures in that respect. That is not to say that poor or middle class parents do any better job, though. It's just that the failures are different.

The problem with wealthy parents is that they tend to ignore their kids, because they have their own lives, obligations, social circles and the family as a unit doesn't function in the same way that others do. The kids that get sent to boarding school are also a unique phenomenon.

Would you entertain the theory that there is goodness in everyone of the individual, and as far as you don't initiate a negative interaction, people are pretty nice?

As a rule, most people are pretty nice to me because I'm pretty nice to them and I think that almost all people want to do good where they can -some just lack either the ability to recognize how their actions impact others or have a hard time empathizing with those of lower socioeconomic status (because don't share the same background or life experiences).

I know it sounds far fetched, but I don't know, I've been thinking along these lines recently. Maybe my experiences have been sheltered. Do you know genuinely 'I have so much of money' people?

I think most middle and upper class kids (especially ones who grow up in the suburbs, as I did) are incredibly sheltered. I know I was and I know almost all of my friends were -not because of anything that they did, but because they live isolated lives. Think about gated communities, and the kind of lives that people lead inside of them. Think about the kinds of interpersonal interactions that (especially kids) have, and the kinds that they don't have. Think about the kind of schools that suburb-kids go too. That's why kids are sheltered.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Do richer people have it better?" No, just bigger bills and more prisons
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:07:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rich people are better off in many ways. Obviously money DOES matter a lot, and can buy nearly everything. It can push you up in the social ladder, create all opportunities for success, and much more. If you're unattractive, boring, ad infinitum -- money can make you not care. You can find someone who attaches to you by looking at your wallet first. You can treat your problems with the best professional care. You've got the money for it.

That's reality.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reality sucks though.

No but that's true. I wish I was rich lol. Being in close proximity with uber rich people is so stressful.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:24:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 3:41:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/21/2013 3:11:18 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:58:54 PM, YYW wrote:
Money does make some things easier, like travel and social opportunities -but in the same rite it makes other things harder (like having greedy worthless relatives who will fight until they reach their own graves for an inheritance they have no proper claim to).

Also, rich kids (as in people who never worked to earn their money and the social status that comes with it) tend to be the worst people to work and interact with -even more so than the nouveau riche.

That's was what I thought initially, but I'm not so sure now. How much of that dislike is genuine dislike and how much of it is the 'envy' factor? I'm interested because I realised I've never actually seen a genuinely 'spoilt brat' except in TVs and stuff.

You should go drinking in Georgetown, lol. There are exceptions to the rule, and most do eventually grow out of it, but there are observable patterns of parental failures in that respect. That is not to say that poor or middle class parents do any better job, though. It's just that the failures are different.

The problem with wealthy parents is that they tend to ignore their kids, because they have their own lives, obligations, social circles and the family as a unit doesn't function in the same way that others do. The kids that get sent to boarding school are also a unique phenomenon.

Would you entertain the theory that there is goodness in everyone of the individual, and as far as you don't initiate a negative interaction, people are pretty nice?

As a rule, most people are pretty nice to me because I'm pretty nice to them and I think that almost all people want to do good where they can -some just lack either the ability to recognize how their actions impact others or have a hard time empathizing with those of lower socioeconomic status (because don't share the same background or life experiences).

I know it sounds far fetched, but I don't know, I've been thinking along these lines recently. Maybe my experiences have been sheltered. Do you know genuinely 'I have so much of money' people?

I think most middle and upper class kids (especially ones who grow up in the suburbs, as I did) are incredibly sheltered. I know I was and I know almost all of my friends were -not because of anything that they did, but because they live isolated lives. Think about gated communities, and the kind of lives that people lead inside of them. Think about the kinds of interpersonal interactions that (especially kids) have, and the kinds that they don't have. Think about the kind of schools that suburb-kids go too. That's why kids are sheltered.

Oh and I agree with almost everything here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:24:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are diminishing returns in wealth -- at least when it comes to satisfaction. The more people are satisfied with something, the more their wants increase. Lottery winners are often unhappy -- it happens to be due to the fact that once they win, their standards of satisfaction increase, and minor successes are not enough to make them happy. Many trips, special social interactions (e.g., many cinema visits, parties, etc.), and so on, become normal -- and their happiness settles or even becomes lower than before their lottery win.
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2013 4:25:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:17:42 PM, Cermank wrote:
Reality sucks though.

No but that's true. I wish I was rich lol.

There are times when I think... "man, it would be really nice to just take a helicopter instead of having to sit in traffic" lol.

Being in close proximity with uber rich people is so stressful.

It can be.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:03:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:24:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
There are diminishing returns in wealth -- at least when it comes to satisfaction. The more people are satisfied with something, the more their wants increase. Lottery winners are often unhappy -- it happens to be due to the fact that once they win, their standards of satisfaction increase, and minor successes are not enough to make them happy. Many trips, special social interactions (e.g., many cinema visits, parties, etc.), and so on, become normal -- and their happiness settles or even becomes lower than before their lottery win.

+1, and psychologists have found the number after which point there are diminishing returns in wealth to be around $75,000.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 4:17:42 PM, Cermank wrote:
Reality sucks though.

No but that's true. I wish I was rich lol. Being in close proximity with uber rich people is so stressful.

Being in close proximity with uber rich people is so stressful.

Then you have a glimpse into the life of the uber rich. Stress is a byproduct of wealth.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, richer people have the same happiness-levels that poor people do. I see the sense in the common notion of ~$75k being the point where you've maximized happiness, but even this doesn't really hold true in my opinion. The way that the human psyche works, happiness is completely relative and regardless of your income or technological level you aren't going to see it change. Is a poor, paraplegic person in the year 2500 BC much more unhappy than a rich, healthy person in 2013? I would not think so.

Studies have shown that traumatic events (and their opposites) don't continue to make you happy for more than a maximum of three months. In other words, if you lose your legs or hit the powerball today, three months from now you're not going to be any more or less happy than you were yesterday in either case. Instances of grief and joy carry consequences that make them harder to achieve after the fact - bad circumstances give you easier opportunities for joy later and good circumstances make you harder to satisfy. Kurt Cobain was interviewed once, and was talking about how he used to be able to go into a thrift shop and get a huge amount of joy from a small purchase, and after becoming a rich rock-star he would go into a store and pretty much buy everything in it only to fail to achieve the same level of excitement he would be able to get before he gained wealth.

Happiness is not linked to health and wealth, it is linked to morality. Take some money and give it to somebody without bragging about it to others or expecting anything in return. The type of happiness that will "buy" you is not fleeting and relative like spending that money on something to indulge yourself in. Similarly, guilt from immorality - selfishness, anger, etc. - affects you negatively in an absolute way that lacking in health or wealth cannot compare to. Jesus used the term "gnashing of teeth" to describe this.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 12:34:45 AM, benevolent wrote:
Yes, richer people have it better/are sheltered.

^obvious lol
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 12:38:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most of the people in this thread only seem interested in the rate at which people's brains inject them with dopamine, as if that's all that matters. Well, what if you get your brain shot off in some slum or other, huh? Duhh rich people have it better.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:37:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the rich may have better success rates for a few reasons, but mainly because they don't need to work, and they can focus on other things other than work (like school or bettering themselves).

And by not needing to work, I am referring to starting a business and not worrying about money coming in right away, or have the ability to not work to pay the rent, so they can have a better job and be happier, which leads to success.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:47:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
I always thought I was pretty comfortably placed in my economic standing. Like , 'It's my father's money anyway, does it really matter.' And I really didn't think it did.

But lately, I have noticed that most of the people at the 'higher ladder' of success are invariably rich. Its not even because they are pulling strings or anything, its just because BECAUSE of the money they have, they have these cool life experiences that let them gain SO much of cool knowledge and place them at a better social standing. Like this place I've been going to lately, it chose 15 people from all over the country, and I thought I was pretty lucky to be selected and stuff, but the more I go there, the more I realize that the people there are... rich. Like filthy rich. Like expat parents and huge estate owner rich. And its interesting because 14 out of 15 people being filthy rich signifies a highly positive correlation between money and success.

It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon. Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Just throwing it out there. I found it fascinating.

Being moneyed is the definition of success, IMHO. Therefore, you can be born a success, or born a failure. It's not a high correlation or even causation, it is a tautology.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:04:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon.

Very interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing.

Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Equality is bad and money enables freedom, not constrains it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:08:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's an upside and a downside to everything.

Rich people have more obligations, more bills, more scrutiny from lower classes, lots to manage, etc.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:13:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:08:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There's an upside and a downside to everything.

Rich people have more obligations, more bills, more scrutiny from lower classes, lots to manage, etc.

You don't explain away the sex slave trade with riposte posts like this. Further, no you're wrong. Money makes it all shady, let's it fall below the surface what's actually being exchanged. A good government would be what you would be looking for to keep scrutiny on the rich, keep them obligated, etc.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
maybe if we digitized money completely and all got like little chips implanted into our palms or something, though, but then you'd probably be against that on account of the mark of the beast or some sh*t, right?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:14:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:47:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
I always thought I was pretty comfortably placed in my economic standing. Like , 'It's my father's money anyway, does it really matter.' And I really didn't think it did.

But lately, I have noticed that most of the people at the 'higher ladder' of success are invariably rich. Its not even because they are pulling strings or anything, its just because BECAUSE of the money they have, they have these cool life experiences that let them gain SO much of cool knowledge and place them at a better social standing. Like this place I've been going to lately, it chose 15 people from all over the country, and I thought I was pretty lucky to be selected and stuff, but the more I go there, the more I realize that the people there are... rich. Like filthy rich. Like expat parents and huge estate owner rich. And its interesting because 14 out of 15 people being filthy rich signifies a highly positive correlation between money and success.

It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon. Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Just throwing it out there. I found it fascinating.

Being moneyed is the definition of success, IMHO. Therefore, you can be born a success, or born a failure. It's not a high correlation or even causation, it is a tautology.

That's true. But here, I was referring to a competition. There was this competition about 'how much you know about libertarianism', where they had a pretty stringent weeding out process. They selected 15 people out of 273 that applied, and 14 out of 15 were rich. Obviously it's not causational, because I'm not rich and I qualified, but the correlation between richness and success in this particular competition cannot be ignored.

This is not even limited to merely this competition, I think the poorer you are, the more 'effort' you need to put in, to ensure you get an equation of opportunities. Like, I have to content myself by *reading* about Bahrain, or Kazakistan, and stuff. Which is cool, but actually going there and experiencing Bahrain or Spain or Europe is a different feat altogether. I've to expend more effort to understand them to the extent someone of a higher economic standing would. A lot of the socialist ideology, in that sense, makes sense. Even though their method of going about it is sh!t.

I'm not sure if it's coming across as clearly as I would like to.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:20:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As regards OP, I'd say there's more a correlation between people being rich and favoring libertarianism to be seen there than a correlation between rich people and success in general, but then you're right anyway - rich people have it better.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:22:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:04:43 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon.

Very interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing.

Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Equality is bad and money enables freedom, not constrains it.

Equality enables freedom of choice. Inequality constraints it.

Do you disagree with that?
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:26:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:23:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/24/2013 2:07:38 AM, benevolent wrote:
Geo, please stop saying stuff.

who the f are you?

A friend of Geo's, just. And the dude is just crazy - trust me.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:47:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 2:14:54 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:47:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/21/2013 2:47:38 PM, Cermank wrote:
I always thought I was pretty comfortably placed in my economic standing. Like , 'It's my father's money anyway, does it really matter.' And I really didn't think it did.

But lately, I have noticed that most of the people at the 'higher ladder' of success are invariably rich. Its not even because they are pulling strings or anything, its just because BECAUSE of the money they have, they have these cool life experiences that let them gain SO much of cool knowledge and place them at a better social standing. Like this place I've been going to lately, it chose 15 people from all over the country, and I thought I was pretty lucky to be selected and stuff, but the more I go there, the more I realize that the people there are... rich. Like filthy rich. Like expat parents and huge estate owner rich. And its interesting because 14 out of 15 people being filthy rich signifies a highly positive correlation between money and success.

It is even more interesting because the respect they command isn't because they have money, (I mean, in part, it IS because they have a mac pc and huge swimming pool), but even in an intellectual environment, it is because they can talk easily about the time they went to Europe and had crazy experiences, and how Bahrain is more conservative than Kazakistan, or whatever.

I thought it was really interesting how money isn't respected BECAUSE money, but because having more money gives you the opportunity to gain more knowledge, to have more experiences that broaden your horizon. Like, I understand what people mean when they say there isn't 'equality' in the real sense, or 'freedom' in the real sense, because money constraint.

Just throwing it out there. I found it fascinating.

Being moneyed is the definition of success, IMHO. Therefore, you can be born a success, or born a failure. It's not a high correlation or even causation, it is a tautology.

That's true. But here, I was referring to a competition. There was this competition about 'how much you know about libertarianism', where they had a pretty stringent weeding out process. They selected 15 people out of 273 that applied, and 14 out of 15 were rich. Obviously it's not causational, because I'm not rich and I qualified, but the correlation between richness and success in this particular competition cannot be ignored.

Call me a deep cynic, but the fact that you are there, and that you do not resemble the others, would give legitimacy to the enterprise as it being "inclusive". Like the "token black guy" in a movie (now usually not as much).

If I were you, I'd make the best of the opportunity and try to network and find common ground, seeing as you are in a relatively unique set of circumstances that you are not exposed to very often.

This is not even limited to merely this competition, I think the poorer you are, the more 'effort' you need to put in, to ensure you get an equation of opportunities. Like, I have to content myself by *reading* about Bahrain, or Kazakistan, and stuff. Which is cool, but actually going there and experiencing Bahrain or Spain or Europe is a different feat altogether. I've to expend more effort to understand them to the extent someone of a higher economic standing would. A lot of the socialist ideology, in that sense, makes sense. Even though their method of going about it is sh!t.

I'm not sure if it's coming across as clearly as I would like to.

I'm not sure what this has to do with socialism, unless you are comparing it as a diametrically opposing position to your libertarian...conference? Whatever it is.

But yes, money opens doors, no question. Probably a more objective perspective on money is like water on a dam. With enough force and enough water, it can spill over any obstacle and sometimes break it altogether. I'm putting it in these terms to attempt to frame it in a morally neutral mentality. For someone without money to break through similar barriers would require a different type of force, although the forcefulness would have to be of the same magnitude, which of course would be quite difficult.

Personally, I'm against a socialist agenda. It's interesting that it's coming up in this thread too, but in a conversation with rross on another thread, I came to the conclusion that a "leisure class" (i.e. a class free from manual labor to pursue luxuries like research and higher education) is necessary for a society to advance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?