"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/Profiting_From_The_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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25244140/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/cnbc-special-report-who-are-super-rich/#.TkfR02PiFGw
In 1985, there were only 13 billionaires in the United States. Today there are more than 1,000.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
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.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's as if, just as humans long ago began shaping the natural environment to their benefit, but to the detriment of other species along the way, so it might seem that the "financial elite" are thus shaping the financial environment.

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.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true.

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.

Originally posted by Mindship
Nature also says that man shouldn't fly, cuz he doesn't have wings. Yet we found a way.

I disagree.

Nature gave us these brains that allowed us to build planes that allowed us to fly.

Therefore, it should be considered "natural" for humans to do anything that we do.

Just like it's natural for a chimp to get termites out of a termite tower with a stick: they could not do it without their brains but it's "natural".

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's nature. The strong survive and the weaker ones perish. Harsh but true.

that hasn't been the view of biologists for decades

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree.

Nature gave us these brains that allowed us to build planes that allowed us to fly.

Therefore, it should be considered "natural" for humans to do anything that we do.

Just like it's natural for a chimp to get termites out of a termite tower with a stick: they could not do it without their brains but it's "natural".

Originally posted by Mindship
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.

Are you talking about transcending our genetics with things like cybernetics or gene therapy?

In which case, I would only partially agree.

Our brains, which were still given to us by nature, allowed for us to augment ourselves. 😄

😆

Originally posted by inimalist
that hasn't been the view of biologists for decades

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.

Originally posted by Mindship
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.

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.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
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.

I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

My Viking blood takes offense at your negative implications. uhuh

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

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."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you talking about transcending our genetics with things like cybernetics or gene therapy?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Although there is nothing wrong with buying nice houses.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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."

I don't know

it seems like he is really blaming people for not being strong enough not to get bombed, not simply for being in the way when we bomb them...

like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism"

Originally posted by Mindship
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 (ie, does not cause a significant loss of quality of life or standard or living).

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?

Originally posted by inimalist
like, "jeez, natives, how could you be so weak to let Europeans take all of your land, you should really step up your bloodthirsty militarism"

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Who gives a ****?

For some people one of the finer things in life is raping ten year old girls.

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.

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.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, the argument you are making is pro rape and pillage?

Not to mention there were societies where that went on quite often.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who gives a ****?

For some people one of the finer things in life is raping ten year old girls.

Except in my example...it's a whole hell of a lot more common.

In fact...everyone is so competitive about "who has what" that it seems the majority are like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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)

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

lol, those claims are fake

the readings almost certainly represent modern day nuclear tests by the Indian government....