Gender: Male Location: ATL\PASADENA\BATTLECREEK\CHICAGO
"rich get richer...yadda-yadda-yadda
It's seems that this is a sad but true saying....my question is -is this a natural law of consequence or is it a forced rule?
I believe that it is a natural law in that we live in a finite world. But my problem is why must there be such extremes in standards of living?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43085437/Pro...e_Wealth_Divide
Homes over $750,000 actually saw an increase in sales. Homes in the $750,000 to $1 million range saw a sales increase of 4.2%. Homes above $1 million saw an 11% increase. Sales of homes in the $100,000 to $500,000 range, for comparison, were down more than 20%.
It really seems to me that there is a concerted effort to create more "super wealthy"- not just rich- at the the expense of the great majority who by natural order be pushed to the other end of the wealth spectrum.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true.
On the home thing I was talking about that. At first I thought the higher end homes would come back slower, but it actually seems they aren't. I've seen ones near me selling. So it seems the rich homes are coming back faster, because those who can afford them will buy them and the deals are just so good now. They waited until the other morons cranked homes up high and self destructed, now they are buying them cheap. Good time to buy houses.
__________________
Stompin' Time!!!
Props to SK
Last edited by Tha C-Master on Aug 15th, 2011 at 03:24 PM
Nature also says that man shouldn't fly, cuz he doesn't have wings. Yet we found a way.
It doesn't have to be this way. Human beings need to make better choices, choices which are truly rational and emphasize long-term, group interests, not short-term emotional thinking with self-interests in mind (ie, greed). IMO, it is the only way we will survive as a species. Unfortunately, what is harsh but true is that this type of thinking is likely a long way off.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I get the gist of what you're saying, and in another context, would even agree. But my point was that we don't have to be limited to our original human design, mentally or physically.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
It's still true. People still choose the most successful and desirable person they can. People still underachieve and have more kids than they can afford, while others choose to further themselves to increase the chances of survival for their own offspring.
We use laws and systems now, but the reason we even have a nation like America is because some men came over and killed, plundered, raped, and stole from others. This land and nation didn't come from out of the air. We made it our territory like animals make their own territory and those who are too weak to defend themselves pack up and leave.
You see it in gang activity amongst anything else. If others can enforce what they say, they won't enforce for long.
Yes, but we were given the brains to improvise.
Although there is nothing wrong with buying nice houses. If you can great. Don't see the problem.
In the US there are 5 bedroom 4 bathroom houses going for $30,000. If you can afford it, why not? We all had to pay for the decisions of the stupid. That's a very good price and the mortgage would be cheaper than renting a 1 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment. It's a no brainier.
I understand his logic as being more along the lines of: "If they didn't build their city there then it wouldn't have been destroyed when we bombed it. This is really their fault."
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Those would be more extreme examples (although, in another context, I might say that building/flying a plane 'transcends' nature). Basically, I was saying we don't have to be greedy.
Agreed. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying any of the finer things in life, as long as it is not at the expense of others.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I'm not joking when I say this: for some, one of the finer things in life IS gaining prosperity at the cost of the quality of life or standard of living of others.
It ties back into the "keeping up with the Jones'" saying.
That promotion? Someone out there is more qualified than you are, deserves it more than you do, but didn't get it because you were better in an interview by random chance of common interest (you both liked fishing or some shit).
In fact, I think there's some sort of biological mechanism in place that rewards those that "win" over their fellow man. I remember reading about "winners" having elevated test levels after winning a sports event. The "winners" get more "winny" by winning. Does that make sense?
Laser precision architecture didn't save the Aztecs. Despite the fact that they were in some ways, far more advanced than their European counterparts....they still couldn't stand up to the "tech" of the invaders.
They were certainly bloodthirsty enough. Well...some were.
Also....side note...
It freaks me out to read about the stories of possible nukes from ancient peeps from India. Something about the idea that a people thousands of years old somehow developed to a technological level around our current age (within 50 yeras) is a bit disturbing.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 15th, 2011 at 06:21 PM
I don't think anyone is really against winners and losers in society, so long as losing doesn't mean not-having-the-means-to-live-a-modest-life.
In many sectors of the economy, we have seen competition as being hugely beneficial (in some ways, labour laws and such, not so much), however, when the greed of some causes so much destruction that others are losing their very livelihood, then it is problematic.
Gender: Male Location: Kicking pigs out of the screen.
But nobody is entitled to live the "lifestyle" they feel entitled to without working for it. Some feel entitled to what the very rich have without working for it. If a person doesn't get up and earn it they don't have the right to anything.
My argument is people will do what they want to survive at the expense of others. Just like any other living creature. If you get a promotion, someone else didn't get it. Someone goes up, another goes down. People cooperate to gain more power, that means someone else is going to go down in power. We aren't as "far away from the jungle" as we'd like to think.
Not to mention there were societies where that went on quite often. On the 10 year old thing, people got married an had kids at a very young age back then.
And yes people do compete, we're the most competitive of all animals. That's why those idiots bought houses they couldn't afford. It was all one big competition. Those who bit the dust perished and those who are taking advantage of things now and getting good houses for cheap prospered.
yes, but their society didn't revolve around technological investment into arms and armament. A lot of this has to do with available minerals and geography, but still, European nations were fielding standing armies long before the rest of the world had developed anything remotely similar (China might be the exception... I'm not sure when they first militarized)
lol, those claims are fake
the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....
KMC Community Forums
Aug 14th, 2011 01:56 PM
