Are you opposed to the acquisition of wealth? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

03-11-2005, 07:40 PM

I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40.

How does that make you feel? Does it change your opinion of me? What do you think about the acquisition of wealth?

Wealth is a form of freedom. Beyond simply being able to own and posses but being able to not have to commit, not have to live frugaly, not have to budget or restrain. I see nothing wrong morally of philosophicaly with making the attaiment of wealth a life long goal.

Charlatan · 03-11-2005, 07:53 PM

The only issue I have with wealth is how it is achieved... If you can achieve it ethically I have no issue...

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMVH

I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40.

Welcome to the club. To answer your question though, I guess it all depends on how you plan on achieving you multi-millionaire status. If you plan on doing it legally through innovation and hard work, then more power to you.

degrawj · 03-11-2005, 08:01 PM

i am opposed to the aquisition of wealth as a means in itself, or if it's for personal gain. for me, i would love to make tons of money, but only so that i could redistribute it as i saw fit. kind of like Bill Gates. sure, he lives a total life of luxury, but he has given so much of his money away, and it's his goal to get rid of all of his money after he dies. all these pop music stars and celebrities make me sick. selfishness is the most despicable human trait.

Grasshopper Green · 03-11-2005, 08:03 PM

I have to agree with the above posters. If you have the ambition and drive to succeed at this, then that is great. Doing it illegally and morally irresponsibly is the only reason I would have negative feelings about this.

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by degrawj

i am opposed to the aquisition of wealth as a means in itself, or if it's for personal gain. for me, i would love to make tons of money, but only so that i could redistribute it as i saw fit. trait.

Yeaaaaahhhhhhh. Thanks for the laugh. If it's your money, you can do whatver you want with it.

guthmund · 03-11-2005, 09:03 PM

If you benefit from the system, shouldn't you give a little back to that system? Not to the point of driving yourself back into destitution, just giving a bit more back than you normally would.

I mean, it would be nice to be stinking filthy rich and be able to do whatever the hell you wanted to, but collecting it simply for the sake of collecting it? I fail to see the point.

Having a lot of money doesn't change my opinion of you, it's how you acquired it and what you do with it that affects my opinion of you.

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 09:11 PM

I think I understand where a lot of you are coming from, seriously. But once you kids get out of school into the real world, when it's YOUR money your'e risking, you might think differently. Bill Gates may give plenty to society, but he has no moral obligation to. Not to mention that he pays more in taxes per year than most of us TFP'ers will ever make in a lifetime.

whocarz · 03-11-2005, 09:14 PM

Getting rich is a common goal. I have no problem with it, but I'll echo what others said and say what does matter is how you aquire it. If you pull a bank job, then I think you are scum. If you get it through hard work, then that's great. I can't say I really give a damn what you do with the money after it's yours. What you do with it is your business and no one elses.

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

Getting rich is a common goal. I have no problem with it, but I'll echo what others said and say what does matter is how you aquire it. If you pull a bank job, then I think you are scum

Care to clarify that statement?

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

Getting rich is a common goal. I have no problem with it, but I'll echo what others said and say what does matter is how you aquire it. If you pull a bank job, then I think you are scum.

You are lost in your own world of wealth distributiion. Good luck on that one kid!

whocarz · 03-11-2005, 09:29 PM

When I say pull a bank job, that means to rob a bank. If you think that's an acceptable way to get money, then you are the one with screwed up ideas.

Oh, and there is an edit button, you don't need to post twice back to back.

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

If you pull a bank job, then I think you are scum..

I guess I'm scum. What a joke this fool's comment is still even up. I guess all bankers are scum?

Replace banker with "trial lawyer" and you would have been shut down down yesterday. Joke?!

RangerDick · 03-11-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

What the fuck are you talking about? Where the fuck was I spouting Socialist statements? I'll refrain from telling you what I feel like I should, and simply say this: Read my post again, slowly if words hurt, and find one pinko thing I said. When I say pull a bank job, that means to rob a bank. If you think that's an acceptable way to get money, then you are the one with screwed up ideas.

Oh, and there is an edit button, you don't need to post twice back to back.

If that's what you meant, I misunderstood you. My apologies.

whocarz · 03-11-2005, 09:32 PM

It's alright. I'm sorry I flew off the handle. Just a big, hairy misunderstanding.

Lockjaw · 03-11-2005, 10:41 PM

People who strive to get wealthy are a ok in my book as long as they try not to step on every little guy on the way up AND they use that wealth responsibly. Personally I think money is just the means to an end and allows people if they use it responsibly to be truer to themselves. If I was blessed with an idea or something and made a bunch of cash I'd certain stack up as much as I could until I hit my mid 40s and then I'd spend the rest of my life doing things I enjoy. I'd probably become a full time student and would dedicate myself to learning new things that interest me. I don't want a lot of stuff I just want the freedom to live a comfortable life(upper middle class would be perfect for me frankly house a few cars wife and 2.5 kids)and the ability to go out and be me. Not having to put on a face for the world just so I can get and keep a job I might not like.

I think that's what the average person would do if they had the means. The only people that seek wealth that piss me off are the ones that stomp all over the little guys to make a buck,the ones that get the money and then go insane(many celebs fit this bill. You do not need shoes that cost 10 gs. You certainly have no space to talk about the plight of the unfortunate in this world when you spend 500 bucks taking a few friends out to eat. You could feed an entire family on that for a few months), and the ones that get the money and just spend all day counting it and not using it. You can afford not to buy one ply toilet paper.

martinguerre · 03-11-2005, 11:06 PM

it all depends on what you do with it. in my family, some people have accumlated wealth through investment... the ones i admire the most are the ones who put it to use. funding education, etc... Just having money to have money seems pretty suspect in my book.

Blackthorn · 03-12-2005, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMVH

I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40.

How does that make you feel? Does it change your opinion of me? What do you think about the acquisition of wealth?

Wealth is a form of freedom. Beyond simply being able to own and posses but being able to not have to commit, not have to live frugaly, not have to budget or restrain. I see nothing wrong morally of philosophicaly with making the attaiment of wealth a life long goal.

Assuming of course that your pursuits are legal and ethical I'd suggest you read "The Millionaire Next Door".

You would not recognize most of the people who are wealthy as millioaires. While it's possible that they can live the non-frugal lifestyle, that's now how they aquired wealth in that capacity in the frist place. They (and this is typically now) do not drive new cars, they live in homes that cost less than $300,000, and they all save money and invest on regular intervals meaning every pay day a portion of their earnings go into their pocket first before paying thier bills. On the subject of bills they have also not run up huge credit card or other revolving credit that has prevented them from being able to save.

bad jane · 03-12-2005, 04:22 AM

provided it is legal, i don't really care much one way or another. sure, money is nice to have and all--wouldn't mind having an endless supply myself!

as for spending responsibly--couldn't care less. it's your money, spend it or save it as you see fit. i don't think giving money to charity makes you a good person, i don't think not giving money makes you a bad person.

does anyone need millions? no. but i'd venture to guess most of us don't really need the majority of our possesions either. do you really need your computer or internet access? no. you can live without it. (and no bs about needing it for work--there are jobs that don't require you to own a computer! and even if that is the only job you could ever have--you are obviously not working right now!)

03-12-2005, 04:37 AM

Id say go for it...But be aware that it wont make you happy, you'll still have as many problems as you would if you only had a 'decent' amount to live on .And you'd add a lot more problems to do with having so much money (fear of kidnap etc)

I hope if you succeed in this that you give a regular percentage to others ,you may think you only got there by your own hard work but Im sure that you would have had to have taken advantage of other peoples hard work too.

MSD · 03-12-2005, 04:59 AM

I don't really see how anyone can be opposed to the acquisition of wealth. If you earn money, you deserve it. If you don't, then you're either extremely unlucky or you haven't worked hard enough.

jhkayakr · 03-12-2005, 05:24 AM

What if he doesn't earn it, but wins it in a lottery, or aquires it like alot of people do, by inheritance?

Strange Famous · 03-12-2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMVH

I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40.

How does that make you feel? Does it change your opinion of me? What do you think about the acquisition of wealth?

Wealth is a form of freedom. Beyond simply being able to own and posses but being able to not have to commit, not have to live frugaly, not have to budget or restrain. I see nothing wrong morally of philosophicaly with making the attaiment of wealth a life long goal.

in my opinion, the acquisition of inappropriate levels of material wealth is certainly a criminal action against the working class, and is certainly not moral.

If somebody is to attempt to attack and exploit and the working class very agressively, this must be appraised in the appropriate way, the inplicationsof this activity must be judged correctly.

If I make an assumption you are my kind of age - 20's - by the time you are 60, you will most certainly NOT be a multi millionaire, such things will not be existing in a communist state.

If I was in power, even in a capitalistic state, it would definitely be a criminal offence to own more than $3,000,000 in liquid and fixed assets. All private corporatiosn immediately would be siezed by democratic institutions without any compensation - those capitalists who refuse to work may live on the minimum welfare standard to ensure they are protected from absolute poverty, this is all.

Lockjaw · 03-12-2005, 06:35 AM

Exactly WHY should it be illegal to have such a high level of wealth? And 3 million really isn't THAT rich. If you worked hard for your money and had a decent paying job properly invested it accumulating 3 million dollars in personal assests is not impossible or beyond a person who did nothing more than went to work everyday and didn't piss their money away. And don't get me started on somebody who might start up a business. They should have their things taken away because if the business was moderately successful even a small one you would easily be worth over 3 million dollars when your home,bank accounts,investments, and business are factored in?
How do you still encourage innovation and drive amongst your populace if they know their own personal wealth is going to be taken from them even if they've been smarter and worked harder than the idiot down the street who wasted their life away yet at the end of the day they still have the same crap.
To be honest your plan wouldn't work in a captialist society because too many people would be used to the good life and would view the government taking away any private business as a direct assault on personal freedoms and one of two things would happen. Massive strikes would occur that would shut the now government run businesses down crippling the countries economy, OR a massive militant uprising would occur.
No offense but I'm very glad you aren't anywhere near being close to being in power.

ziadel · 03-12-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

in my opinion, the acquisition of inappropriate levels of material wealth is certainly a criminal action against the working class, and is certainly not moral.

If somebody is to attempt to attack and exploit and the working class very agressively, this must be appraised in the appropriate way, the inplicationsof this activity must be judged correctly.

If I make an assumption you are my kind of age - 20's - by the time you are 60, you will most certainly NOT be a multi millionaire, such things will not be existing in a communist state.

If I was in power, even in a capitalistic state, it would definitely be a criminal offence to own more than $3,000,000 in liquid and fixed assets. All private corporatiosn immediately would be siezed by democratic institutions without any compensation - those capitalists who refuse to work may live on the minimum welfare standard to ensure they are protected from absolute poverty, this is all.

dude, you frighten me. you really really do.

I for one consider it very fortunate that you are here, on TFproject talking about this, as opposed to being involved in politics in some way.

In your version of the world, there'd be no advanced in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, weaponry.

People bust their ass to get ahead, if no one can get ahead, no one will care. They'll do the bare minimum required to get their montly 'rations' of whatever, and that's it.

I suppose in your version it's a good thing the government is sitting on all the money, because your going to have to pay out the nose to other countries to get anything and everything that requires a little bit of effort to produce.

Cynthetiq · 03-12-2005, 07:27 AM

SF,

In your world I guess then the Lotto Winners would be stripped of their winnings and capped at $3M.... yeah, people would be interested in buying tickets for $100M pots only to get $3M.

and for those of you with the Millionaire next door... I'm working on it in that manner.... some of my friends think I'm nuts for not always getting the newest computers, home entertainment, videogames etc.

canuckguy · 03-12-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

in my opinion, the acquisition of inappropriate levels of material wealth is certainly a criminal action against the working class, and is certainly not moral.

If somebody is to attempt to attack and exploit and the working class very agressively, this must be appraised in the appropriate way, the inplicationsof this activity must be judged correctly.

If I make an assumption you are my kind of age - 20's - by the time you are 60, you will most certainly NOT be a multi millionaire, such things will not be existing in a communist state.

If I was in power, even in a capitalistic state, it would definitely be a criminal offence to own more than $3,000,000 in liquid and fixed assets. All private corporatiosn immediately would be siezed by democratic institutions without any compensation - those capitalists who refuse to work may live on the minimum welfare standard to ensure they are protected from absolute poverty, this is all.

Wow, just wow. 3 million? If I can make an assumption like you did about the original poster, that you, yourself are not wealthy? It is always easier to give away someone else money than your own. It would be interesting to see what would happen if your type of government existed. just let me know ahead of time so i can move away if I need too!
People get upset enough about paying taxes let alone the government taking everything after 3 million!

Astrocloud · 03-12-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMVH

I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40.

How does that make you feel? Does it change your opinion of me? What do you think about the acquisition of wealth?

I think a couple of things.

First of all it's not the destination but rather the journey. How are you going to become wealthy?

For example it's all well and good to say: "I'm going to invent an antigravity device" but exactly how are you going to invent this? You have to have a reasonable working plan -otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

As far as the "ethics" of your position:

I think that there are people who will react jealously to your proposal. They've already made up their minds that such fantasies are out of their reach and they resent you for holding on to yours.

I've met people who (before I was poor -like I am now) thought that I made too much money and was somehow being selfish. I should note that the person in question was someone who had everything handed to her on a plate. i.e. Her parents supported her throughout her life and even paid for her college. I think that a certain portion of these people are ones who really haven't had a chance to do it on their own; take on their own risks and reap the reward of their own actions. They are simply smug in their own security and criticize those who are willing to put their asses on the line.

martinguerre · 03-12-2005, 08:21 AM

i really don't think we ought to be concerned with making sure the Lotto still works after the revolution. Really.

Most of the world's population lives on less thatn $2 per day. Three F$cking Million is a lot.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

SF,

In your world I guess then the Lotto Winners would be stripped of their winnings and capped at $3M.... yeah, people would be interested in buying tickets for $100M pots only to get $3M.

and for those of you with the Millionaire next door... I'm working on it in that manner.... some of my friends think I'm nuts for not always getting the newest computers, home entertainment, videogames etc.

such institutions as the lottery will not exist in a communist society, nor will "money".

In a perfect society, people will contribute what they can, and they will receive what they need. People play the lotto today to escape from the alienation of labour and the misery of capiatlist exploitation... in a communist society where labour is not alienated, such desires will not exist.

The abolition of capitalistic exploitation seeks to free all people from misery. The "Lotto" gives each person only a million to one dream that they make escape... we aim to free all people, not to offer dreams that somehow make the misery of capitlaistic conditions tolerable (or offset this misery long enough to survive).

Lets gets to fundamentals, and I wil answer several posts in one, rather than reply to everyone. What I am saying is very simple

I believe that people do not need to be motivated to work hard and excel by the prospect or personal gain. I believe that people who exist in a true community, and who have free and truly democratic lives will be motivated. I have a belief in human nature that it is possible for humans to be good. I do not believe that only selfish self interest can motivate innovation and hard work.

I believe that a society where all people are stakeholders, and where everyone has a say, creates harder workers than a society of exploitation, alienation, misery.

How many people do YOU know who like their jobs. All people dream of becoming an expoiter, or better to find scope in the margins... but teh majority are exploited... I am aiming for the freedom of everyone, not just teh prospect of freedom for the strongest. I believe people are good, or possible of goodness, community, decency... that people are not selfish and only self interested.

I look at the world today. Bill Gates has assets in the billions. People are starving to death in Sudan. Any system that allows this has failed. Even in America, which is the most powerful and richest society in the capitalist world, this system is failing. While some are so rich they cannot spend the money they have, while we live in a society where rap singers spend millions ona fleet of cars,,, people in America are dying on the streets. This is a society whose failure is ultimate in its weakness, that is so pathetic, so puny, so abhorent, that it cannot even protect some of its people from death by poverty, while others have billions and ultimnate power. This is a society that cannot HELP but continue to damage the physical environment again and again and again, because it cannot HELP but be driven by profit.

Capitalish has failed, and has proved to any reasonable person to be hopelessly inadequate as a means of government. Capitalism certainl;y will cause a general collapse of society wiuthing 10 years in the West. Either the people will rebuild society on a socialist basis, or sieze control via a revolution before this state, or humanity will not be existing in its present form. This is the simple truth. Anyone who is 20 today will not live in a capitalist society when they are 45.

Cynthetiq · 03-12-2005, 08:42 AM

capitalism has failed??? really?

and that's why USSR still stands? the Communist Bloc states????

Oh.. you'll point to Cuba... a small nation that can barely sustain itself and people seem to be trying to leave that island nation on anything that floats and is barely sea worthy.

Ok, China then... they currrently have lots of poor, people killing baby girls because of over population. China is having a hard time wrestling with a blended capitalism....

Charlatan · 03-12-2005, 08:58 AM

Capitalism in its purest form has failed... That said, there is nowhere on this planet that capitalism in its pure form is practiced. The free market has long been tempered by governmental reforms.

Marx painted one of the most accurate pictures of what Captialism is (was). What he failed to see was Capitalism's ability to be flexible, to absorb concepts like collective bargaining.

Communism or the dictatorship of the proletariat... the kind of violent revolution Marx predicted would occur will never occur in a society that has brought the kind of general wealth our current systems have brought about. The middle class is too large and will never risk the loss of their material posessions and property.

Captialism contines to be tempered by more progressive policies such as the ones we see in Canada or Scandinavia. Capitalism is still the best system we have despite its myriad problems.

True change and reform takes time and will never come from the barrel of a gun. Rather it comes from dedicated people working within the system to bring about reform. Time and patience is what brings about this sort of change.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

capitalism has failed??? really?

and that's why USSR still stands? the Communist Bloc states????

Oh.. you'll point to Cuba... a small nation that can barely sustain itself and people seem to be trying to leave that island nation on anything that floats and is barely sea worthy.

Ok, China then... they currrently have lots of poor, people killing baby girls because of over population. China is having a hard time wrestling with a blended capitalism....

There has not yet been a communist nation, the closest you will find to communism is the Israeli kibbutz.

And your point about China is a little bit silly really, given that is the fastest growing capitalist economy in the world.

Strange Famous · 03-12-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Capitalism in its purest form has failed... That said, there is nowhere on this planet that capitalism in its pure form is practiced. The free market has long been tempered by governmental reforms.

Marx painted one of the most accurate pictures of what Captialism is (was). What he failed to see was Capitalism's ability to be flexible, to absorb concepts like collective bargaining.

Communism or the dictatorship of the proletariat... the kind of violent revolution Marx predicted would occur will never occur in a society that has brought the kind of general wealth our current systems have brought about. The middle class is too large and will never risk the loss of their material posessions and property.

Captialism contines to be tempered by more progressive policies such as the ones we see in Canada or Scandinavia. Capitalism is still the best system we have despite its myriad problems.

True change and reform takes time and will never come from the barrel of a gun. Rather it comes from dedicated people working within the system to bring about reform. Time and patience is what brings about this sort of change.

I completely agree with your first point. Marx and Engels both predicted the collapse of capitalism in teh next few years, and they were right... and wrong. True capitalism was destroyed in the revolution of 1914-1918. What Marx did not predict, was the formation of "social capitalism", which has lasted almost 100 years.

When Marx used the term dictatorship, he used it in the classical sense, and not the modern sense (ie he meant an emergency government, not a Stalinist type state).. capitalism has reformed in order to survive, but the fundamental floor of the market system and the profit system has simply proved itself as an incapable system in terms of distributing resources. It will fail because it is and wiull continue to fail the true interests of the people.

As for the middle classes, and the media induced prejudice... you would be surprised, opinion can turn very quickly, the revolution will catch hold of the people very quickly when it happens.

03-12-2005, 09:23 AM

In response to multiple posts:

I intend to start, hopefully, multiple business ventures. I do not know enough about business managment and administration to begin yet. This fall I will be studying a diplo program for entrepreneurship and business managment.

We are all part of this society and without people and infrastructures there is no way I could succeed. Becuase I want in excess of what is needed to survive, I will accept my goals are selfish but when has modern living ever been about survival? I am motivated by all the beauty that is created from people coming together to manufacter / build and design. Any business venture I begin will not be a lone journey. Although it will potentialy create wealth for myself it will also create jobs, I do not see employment as a form of explotation.

Astrocloud · 03-12-2005, 09:46 AM

First of all, Kibbutz style communism (like the quaker societies here in the states) work very well and so does small scale capitalism. The reason is simple: when people deal with each other on a face to face scale -they are more willing to be honest with each other AND NOT cheat the system.

For example if you are in a farming kibbutz and are not pulling your weight -You will sit down to dinner with your fellows and look them in the eye.

Similarly, if you are in a capitalist system and encountering some Tragedy of the Commons type situation where there is a shared resource and an incentive to overuse the resource. On a very small scale people will be willing to share and preserve their resource -because they understand the importance of it.

However both models (capitalism and communism) break down on the larger scale. In communist models -grabs for power will be made. Certain people won't adhere to the founding principles and they won't have any incentive to react ethically with everyone's best interests in mind.

Similarly, capitalism breaks down on the larger scale; large companies won't feel the need to react ethically to a small community's shared resource.

So in either case, certain checks are needed for the systems in question to function. Historically, there have been few checks on the communist systems and capitalism still has a ways to go.

Lockjaw · 03-12-2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Anyone who is 20 today will not live in a capitalist society when they are 45.

That's a very bold sentiment and one that is probably well far away from reality as you can get. As you have just stated capitalism in it's myriad forms is GROWING not shrinking and it'll be another 10 years before the current cycle starts to even out.
There are simply too many factors and variables to say such a thing. It will take a massive occurance for captialism to cease. And I promise you such a thing like a revolution to forsake the tenents most Americans and even Canadians have been raised upon will not get enough popular sentiment that a true revolution will occur that will come to any type of fruition. Western society if anything is decadent and we like our stuff. Taking away our shiny bobles and the capacity to get such things will not go well for those attempting to do so. Western societies,espcially many Americans have a decided distrust of authority and the government in at least some manner. Most will not stand for a government who will feast off of their contributions and give them little choice in the matter. In a capitalist society you are a slave to the system but many people have a choice of WHO they are going to be a slave to. You do not have that choice in a communist society. The government owns you. They own any idea you may create. They own any advancement you come up with. That isn't true in a capitalist society as can be readily seen when a lot of Western tech is sold overseas.

And I hate to break it to you humans are not basically good. We are basically flawed,selfish and greedy. Most people do not agree we are all in essence equals especially if we all have different skill levels, interests, and abilities. We agree that we should get fair shots but beyond that...no.

In short there will be no revolution at least not in the way you are thinking. I just turned 27 and if truly by the time I'm 52 and there are 0 capitalist societies on this planet I have a feeling it will be because something else other than a wave of communist doctrine swept the world. And if that DOES come true. I'm telling my kids do not work just get a book learn as much as you can leech as much as you can from the puppets that are stupid enough to provide you with all the food you can eat and clothing that you can wear. So that when the current system crashes and burns that hopefully you will be in place to make the best of a reborn capitalist society that will rise out of it's ashes.

Quote:

Most of the world's population lives on less thatn $2 per day. Three F$cking Million is a lot.

Considering what I see of their living conditions and all just because they are living on less than two bucks a day doesn't make me jump at the chance of living their lifestyle.
Take that family that is getting by on 2 bucks a day let them come over here and likely work less get paid more and likely live many times better on the 80-100 dollar a day landscaping job that they can get by simply standing around at day work sites.
I mean you need to look no further than the waves of Mexican immigrants into this country. Many are working just as hard or less than they did back in Mexico but they are making so much more money here that people willing risk their lives to get the shit jobs most Americans do not want to do. They do this because THIS is a better life than what they can manage in their little pueblos and ranchos back home.

kid astronaut · 03-12-2005, 06:34 PM

everyone here has covered the ethical side of things, and most people here seem to think that being rich would be pretty sweet, so i'll just say:

i have no problem with you wanting to be rich, but if having millions of dollars is your #1 goal, i will probably think you are a little bit boring.

good luck with it, though!

meembo · 03-12-2005, 06:51 PM

I wanted to have kids before I was 40, and I did. I feel like the richest guy in the world in the morning when all my kids climb in bed to snuggle. That's what I want to remember and think about on the day I die -- not how many sheckles passed through my hands. Money is nice. Love is nicer. Most people don't have the time to accomplish both, because they are both very demanding.

SVT01Cobra · 03-12-2005, 06:54 PM

I'm not opposed to it at all.

Why? It means you are different from everyone else. It means you were willing to go the extra mile, above all the others who settle for whatever life gives them. And it means that you don't settle for "second best".

That's my opinion. I feel that those who hate on people like Bill Gates, and other large corporations are the types of people who hate just because "If I can't be rich or good looking, then no one else should!"
It all spawns from envy, and eventually turns to jealousy, and then finally to hatred.

03-11-2005, 07:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
NotMVH Guest	Are you opposed to the acquisition of wealth? I am trying to become a multimillionaire before I reach 40. How does that make you feel? Does it change your opinion of me? What do you think about the acquisition of wealth? Wealth is a form of freedom. Beyond simply being able to own and posses but being able to not have to commit, not have to live frugaly, not have to budget or restrain. I see nothing wrong morally of philosophicaly with making the attaiment of wealth a life long goal.

03-11-2005, 07:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The only issue I have with wealth is how it is achieved... If you can achieve it ethically I have no issue... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-11-2005, 08:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	I have to agree with the above posters. If you have the ambition and drive to succeed at this, then that is great. Doing it illegally and morally irresponsibly is the only reason I would have negative feelings about this. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

03-11-2005, 09:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	If you benefit from the system, shouldn't you give a little back to that system? Not to the point of driving yourself back into destitution, just giving a bit more back than you normally would. I mean, it would be nice to be stinking filthy rich and be able to do whatever the hell you wanted to, but collecting it simply for the sake of collecting it? I fail to see the point. Having a lot of money doesn't change my opinion of you, it's how you acquired it and what you do with it that affects my opinion of you. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously. Last edited by guthmund; 03-11-2005 at 09:06 PM..

03-11-2005, 09:14 PM	#9 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Getting rich is a common goal. I have no problem with it, but I'll echo what others said and say what does matter is how you aquire it. If you pull a bank job, then I think you are scum. If you get it through hard work, then that's great. I can't say I really give a damn what you do with the money after it's yours. What you do with it is your business and no one elses. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

03-11-2005, 08:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
degrawj I'm still waiting... Location: West Linn, OR	i am opposed to the aquisition of wealth as a means in itself, or if it's for personal gain. for me, i would love to make tons of money, but only so that i could redistribute it as i saw fit. kind of like Bill Gates. sure, he lives a total life of luxury, but he has given so much of his money away, and it's his goal to get rid of all of his money after he dies. all these pop music stars and celebrities make me sick. selfishness is the most despicable human trait.

03-11-2005, 09:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	I think I understand where a lot of you are coming from, seriously. But once you kids get out of school into the real world, when it's YOUR money your'e risking, you might think differently. Bill Gates may give plenty to society, but he has no moral obligation to. Not to mention that he pays more in taxes per year than most of us TFP'ers will ever make in a lifetime.

03-11-2005, 09:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	When I say pull a bank job, that means to rob a bank. If you think that's an acceptable way to get money, then you are the one with screwed up ideas. Oh, and there is an edit button, you don't need to post twice back to back. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly Last edited by whocarz; 03-11-2005 at 09:32 PM..

03-11-2005, 09:32 PM	#15 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	It's alright. I'm sorry I flew off the handle. Just a big, hairy misunderstanding. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

03-11-2005, 10:41 PM	#16 (permalink)
Lockjaw Junkie	People who strive to get wealthy are a ok in my book as long as they try not to step on every little guy on the way up AND they use that wealth responsibly. Personally I think money is just the means to an end and allows people if they use it responsibly to be truer to themselves. If I was blessed with an idea or something and made a bunch of cash I'd certain stack up as much as I could until I hit my mid 40s and then I'd spend the rest of my life doing things I enjoy. I'd probably become a full time student and would dedicate myself to learning new things that interest me. I don't want a lot of stuff I just want the freedom to live a comfortable life(upper middle class would be perfect for me frankly house a few cars wife and 2.5 kids)and the ability to go out and be me. Not having to put on a face for the world just so I can get and keep a job I might not like. I think that's what the average person would do if they had the means. The only people that seek wealth that piss me off are the ones that stomp all over the little guys to make a buck,the ones that get the money and then go insane(many celebs fit this bill. You do not need shoes that cost 10 gs. You certainly have no space to talk about the plight of the unfortunate in this world when you spend 500 bucks taking a few friends out to eat. You could feed an entire family on that for a few months), and the ones that get the money and just spend all day counting it and not using it. You can afford not to buy one ply toilet paper.

03-11-2005, 11:06 PM	#17 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	it all depends on what you do with it. in my family, some people have accumlated wealth through investment... the ones i admire the most are the ones who put it to use. funding education, etc... Just having money to have money seems pretty suspect in my book. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

03-12-2005, 04:22 AM	#19 (permalink)
bad jane Insane	provided it is legal, i don't really care much one way or another. sure, money is nice to have and all--wouldn't mind having an endless supply myself! as for spending responsibly--couldn't care less. it's your money, spend it or save it as you see fit. i don't think giving money to charity makes you a good person, i don't think not giving money makes you a bad person. does anyone need millions? no. but i'd venture to guess most of us don't really need the majority of our possesions either. do you really need your computer or internet access? no. you can live without it. (and no bs about needing it for work--there are jobs that don't require you to own a computer! and even if that is the only job you could ever have--you are obviously not working right now!)

03-12-2005, 04:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
Lin Guest	Id say go for it...But be aware that it wont make you happy, you'll still have as many problems as you would if you only had a 'decent' amount to live on .And you'd add a lot more problems to do with having so much money (fear of kidnap etc) I hope if you succeed in this that you give a regular percentage to others ,you may think you only got there by your own hard work but Im sure that you would have had to have taken advantage of other peoples hard work too.

03-12-2005, 04:59 AM	#21 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I don't really see how anyone can be opposed to the acquisition of wealth. If you earn money, you deserve it. If you don't, then you're either extremely unlucky or you haven't worked hard enough.

03-12-2005, 05:24 AM	#22 (permalink)
jhkayakr Insane Location: under the skirt	What if he doesn't earn it, but wins it in a lottery, or aquires it like alot of people do, by inheritance? __________________ ........gotta need for speed....

03-12-2005, 06:35 AM	#24 (permalink)
Lockjaw Junkie	Exactly WHY should it be illegal to have such a high level of wealth? And 3 million really isn't THAT rich. If you worked hard for your money and had a decent paying job properly invested it accumulating 3 million dollars in personal assests is not impossible or beyond a person who did nothing more than went to work everyday and didn't piss their money away. And don't get me started on somebody who might start up a business. They should have their things taken away because if the business was moderately successful even a small one you would easily be worth over 3 million dollars when your home,bank accounts,investments, and business are factored in? How do you still encourage innovation and drive amongst your populace if they know their own personal wealth is going to be taken from them even if they've been smarter and worked harder than the idiot down the street who wasted their life away yet at the end of the day they still have the same crap. To be honest your plan wouldn't work in a captialist society because too many people would be used to the good life and would view the government taking away any private business as a direct assault on personal freedoms and one of two things would happen. Massive strikes would occur that would shut the now government run businesses down crippling the countries economy, OR a massive militant uprising would occur. No offense but I'm very glad you aren't anywhere near being close to being in power.

03-12-2005, 07:27 AM	#26 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	SF, In your world I guess then the Lotto Winners would be stripped of their winnings and capped at $3M.... yeah, people would be interested in buying tickets for $100M pots only to get $3M. and for those of you with the Millionaire next door... I'm working on it in that manner.... some of my friends think I'm nuts for not always getting the newest computers, home entertainment, videogames etc. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-12-2005, 08:21 AM	#29 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i really don't think we ought to be concerned with making sure the Lotto still works after the revolution. Really. Most of the world's population lives on less thatn $2 per day. Three F$cking Million is a lot. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

03-12-2005, 08:42 AM	#31 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	capitalism has failed??? really? and that's why USSR still stands? the Communist Bloc states???? Oh.. you'll point to Cuba... a small nation that can barely sustain itself and people seem to be trying to leave that island nation on anything that floats and is barely sea worthy. Ok, China then... they currrently have lots of poor, people killing baby girls because of over population. China is having a hard time wrestling with a blended capitalism.... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-12-2005, 08:58 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Capitalism in its purest form has failed... That said, there is nowhere on this planet that capitalism in its pure form is practiced. The free market has long been tempered by governmental reforms. Marx painted one of the most accurate pictures of what Captialism is (was). What he failed to see was Capitalism's ability to be flexible, to absorb concepts like collective bargaining. Communism or the dictatorship of the proletariat... the kind of violent revolution Marx predicted would occur will never occur in a society that has brought the kind of general wealth our current systems have brought about. The middle class is too large and will never risk the loss of their material posessions and property. Captialism contines to be tempered by more progressive policies such as the ones we see in Canada or Scandinavia. Capitalism is still the best system we have despite its myriad problems. True change and reform takes time and will never come from the barrel of a gun. Rather it comes from dedicated people working within the system to bring about reform. Time and patience is what brings about this sort of change. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-12-2005, 09:23 AM	#35 (permalink)
NotMVH Guest	In response to multiple posts: I intend to start, hopefully, multiple business ventures. I do not know enough about business managment and administration to begin yet. This fall I will be studying a diplo program for entrepreneurship and business managment. We are all part of this society and without people and infrastructures there is no way I could succeed. Becuase I want in excess of what is needed to survive, I will accept my goals are selfish but when has modern living ever been about survival? I am motivated by all the beauty that is created from people coming together to manufacter / build and design. Any business venture I begin will not be a lone journey. Although it will potentialy create wealth for myself it will also create jobs, I do not see employment as a form of explotation.

03-12-2005, 09:46 AM	#36 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	First of all, Kibbutz style communism (like the quaker societies here in the states) work very well and so does small scale capitalism. The reason is simple: when people deal with each other on a face to face scale -they are more willing to be honest with each other AND NOT cheat the system. For example if you are in a farming kibbutz and are not pulling your weight -You will sit down to dinner with your fellows and look them in the eye. Similarly, if you are in a capitalist system and encountering some Tragedy of the Commons type situation where there is a shared resource and an incentive to overuse the resource. On a very small scale people will be willing to share and preserve their resource -because they understand the importance of it. However both models (capitalism and communism) break down on the larger scale. In communist models -grabs for power will be made. Certain people won't adhere to the founding principles and they won't have any incentive to react ethically with everyone's best interests in mind. Similarly, capitalism breaks down on the larger scale; large companies won't feel the need to react ethically to a small community's shared resource. So in either case, certain checks are needed for the systems in question to function. Historically, there have been few checks on the communist systems and capitalism still has a ways to go.

03-12-2005, 06:34 PM	#38 (permalink)
kid astronaut Tilted Location: Portland, OR	everyone here has covered the ethical side of things, and most people here seem to think that being rich would be pretty sweet, so i'll just say: i have no problem with you wanting to be rich, but if having millions of dollars is your #1 goal, i will probably think you are a little bit boring. good luck with it, though!

03-12-2005, 06:51 PM	#39 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I wanted to have kids before I was 40, and I did. I feel like the richest guy in the world in the morning when all my kids climb in bed to snuggle. That's what I want to remember and think about on the day I die -- not how many sheckles passed through my hands. Money is nice. Love is nicer. Most people don't have the time to accomplish both, because they are both very demanding. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

03-12-2005, 06:54 PM	#40 (permalink)
SVT01Cobra Psycho Location: Somewhere, Missouri	I'm not opposed to it at all. Why? It means you are different from everyone else. It means you were willing to go the extra mile, above all the others who settle for whatever life gives them. And it means that you don't settle for "second best". That's my opinion. I feel that those who hate on people like Bill Gates, and other large corporations are the types of people who hate just because "If I can't be rich or good looking, then no one else should!" It all spawns from envy, and eventually turns to jealousy, and then finally to hatred.