@JingleBells See our earlier discussion re: value. I do not agree that "creating value to society" and "being rich" are synonymous or even strongly correlated
So why are you ok with calling someone who is not rich "lazy" or "stupid" when we've just agreed neither of these are qualities a person needs to be rich
And maybe you should think about why, in the standard modern account of democracy, we explicitly don't confer "more votes" to anyone (though historically it has been a popular idea to do that - we now usually classify this as undemocratic and oppressive).
@Charlie Because 67% of wealthy people have started from the bottom. And those who inherit wealth will create more jobs and/or create value to society. And also, lottery winners are not that many to matter in the long term.
because a person who inherits a lot of money is not forced to invest it back into the country in the form of creating a business and/or inventing something new
@Charlie Yes, actually most of the 1% do not stay in the 1% and a rich kid who has inherited money can either spend it (which creates jobs) or create a business (which creates jobs and value)
> Wealth-X partners with prestige brands across the financial services, luxury, not-for-profit and higher-education industries to fuel strategic decision-making in sales, marketing and compliance. We have developed the world’s most extensive collection of records on wealthy individuals and produce unparalleled data analysis to help our clients uncover, understand, and engage their target audience, as well as mitigate risk.
"Hmm, I don't see the problem with the rich getting to cast more votes on what society values." Also just in reference specifically to this, rich people "value" vastly, vastly different things to the average person
What I mean is if you allow wealthy people to make decisions, they will make them based on their own personal interests, which will disadvantage the majority of the population
An obvious problem with the rich getting more say is that having more say gives them more power, and if the wealthy have more power, and power is determined by wealth, what prevents the wealthy from making policies which only exist to maintain their wealth and keep others from achieving wealth/power?
I'm done arguing capitalism vs socialism. A bunch of socialists arguing a single unexperienced capitalist debater and then they talk about fairness. I wouldn't bother with 4 people hurling arguments at me before I can even type anything or contemplate what's going on. I will not bother. Still, I thank you for your time.
Even in a "meaningless world", the sun still shines, food tastes wonderful, laughing feels good and myriads of fun things await. I don't see how one needs "meaning" to enjoy that.
2020 version: Even in a "meaningless world", the sun still shines, toilet paper tastes wonderful, laughing alone feels good and myriads of fun things await. I don't see how one needs "meaning" to enjoy that.
I prefer gold because it's nutritional value is pretty stable over time. I don't have to worry about having a satisfying meal and then have it become less nutritional after I already spent so much time eating it.
making peace with meaninglessness is kind of a neutral position; existentialists and nihilists always hold an angsty position with "meaning of life", the former always looking for "divine meaning", which is fundamentally "good" and the latter looking for "dreadful meaning", which is fundamentally "bad"
whatever those words in scare quotes mean
its like optimism vs pessimism. apathetic is the neutral position
JingleBells have you been eating toilet paper again
Permit me to draw your attention to my profile image.
(Permit me further to abuse my standing in the community, and draw your attention to the Etsy link in my profile. The prints came out fabulous; I've sold fifty so far.)
@ACuriousMind I know. I've outed myself before. I'm not a secret agent; I just don't want physics.se to be the top search result for my uncommon name for the next decade.