PDA

View Full Version : An innocent fable of a very wealthy man



stalkervision
01-05-2011, 03:24 PM
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2011/01/04/this_modern_world/story.jpg

GoToAway
01-05-2011, 04:15 PM
The peasantry worships the wealthy in this country. They buy into the myth that with enough "hard work," they too will someday be wealthy.

Which is why we routinely see the lower and middle classes supporting initiatives that actually oppose their own self interests. All on the vain hope that one day they will benefit from them.

falling-bird
01-05-2011, 05:10 PM
Bizarre...

Wealth is mostly about the luck of who you're born to.
*tugs forelock*

VW-IceFire
01-05-2011, 10:47 PM
Great cartoon.

And yes... weird... very weird that country to the south.

WTE_Galway
01-05-2011, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
The peasantry worships the wealthy in this country. They buy into the myth that with enough "hard work," they too will someday be wealthy.

Which is why we routinely see the lower and middle classes supporting initiatives that actually oppose their own self interests. All on the vain hope that one day they will benefit from them.


There is a term for that in politics ... its called aspirational voting.

AndyJWest
01-06-2011, 12:04 AM
There is a term for that in politics ... its called aspirational voting.
Or to use an older term, false conciousness. Why defraud people when you can persuade them to defraud themselves more easily?

Badsight-
01-06-2011, 04:43 PM
the comic strip , while funny , is implying that the rich man wasnt awear of how risky the deal was

jarink
01-06-2011, 05:12 PM
What's really funny (or not) is that in real life it wasn't "everyone" pitching in to save the rich man, it was the government.

Most of us "everyones" couldn't give a crap if a rich guy loses his money.

GoToAway
01-06-2011, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
What's really funny (or not) is that in real life it wasn't "everyone" pitching in to save the rich man, it was the government.

Most of us "everyones" couldn't give a crap if a rich guy loses his money. ...and where exactly does "the government" get money?

That would be from "everyone."

jarink
01-06-2011, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
What's really funny (or not) is that in real life it wasn't "everyone" pitching in to save the rich man, it was the government.

Most of us "everyones" couldn't give a crap if a rich guy loses his money. ...and where exactly does "the government" get money?

That would be from "everyone." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the government is taking that money from the people who don't wish it to be spent in such a manner. Thus last November.

PhantomKira
01-06-2011, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
Yes, but the government is taking that money from the people who don't wish it to be spent in such a manner. Thus last November.

By which, you mean, of course, a minimum of 50.1% of the population. I've heard the words "mandate from the people" used in elections far too often. Just because an election swings one way or another does not by any means mean that all the people feel that way.

GoToAway
01-06-2011, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
Yes, but the government is taking that money from the people who don't wish it to be spent in such a manner. Thus last November. ...and the last seven years of war is somehow different?

A minority of the population voted. It wasn't a "referendum" on anything. And the irony is that the tea baggers that were voted in to "end corruption" have aspired to break records in ear marking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


The point is: our tax dollars paid to bail out the wealthy. This is a bipartisan issue--every party is beholden to the upper 3%. The rest of us can suffer for as long as necessary to ensure that the wealthy experience no inconvenience in the charmed lives that they were born into.

And the validation for this point is based on nothing more than a lie--that "hard work" can get us into the 3% as well.

WTE_Galway
01-06-2011, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
Yes, but the government is taking that money from the people who don't wish it to be spent in such a manner. Thus last November.

By which, you mean, of course, a minimum of 50.1% of the population. I've heard the words "mandate from the people" used in elections far too often. Just because an election swings one way or another does not by any means mean that all the people feel that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


More specifically, even if 100% of the population voted for a particular party. That massive vote may be because the "people" approved of some major policy areas like say defense health and education. It is quite possible that 100% of the people actually also disapproved of that parties policy in many other areas.

The idea that "you voted me in and that gives me a mandate to do everything I stand for" is thus ludicrous.

Intelligent voters will often be liberal in some areas. conservative in others and tend to vote for the party that "best fits" what they see as important. The fanatical rabid conservatives and liberals are incurable but fortunately a minority.

To claim a mandate is fair enough if a particular policy was touted as THE major campaign issue of the election of course, but not otherwise.

hop2002
01-07-2011, 02:26 AM
Well, the cartoon says the "rich man" invested in "Nigerian email backed securities". The real story was that banks invested ordinary people's savings in "mortgages". They did so with the full approval of governments, their regulators, and the public who took out the mortgages.

And in most countries, cuts are being made because governments spent the last decade increasing spending to unsustainable levels. In Britain, for example, we had a 7% structural deficit before the recession began, and the bank bailout is now expected to cost the taxpayer nothing in the long term. The interest rates the banks paid and the profit the government makes on the sale of shares in the nationalised banks is expected to completely offset the costs of the bailout. The cuts are entirely caused by the need to get the unsustainable spending of the noughties under control, and to meet the interest payments on the money that's been borrowed to pay for that spending.

Sillius_Sodus
01-07-2011, 11:25 AM
Errr, ummmm, political discussion on the forum?

...IBTL? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
01-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Actually, I think the level of political debate on the forum has improved considerably since it was banned. Mostly because people at least try to discuss politics, rather than hurling around random insults. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Outlaw---
01-08-2011, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
And the validation for this point is based on nothing more than a lie--that "hard work" can get us into the 3% as well.

Only an idiot believes that "hard work" at a regular job will get you into the top 3% of earners. If you're lucky, such work can provide an opportunity to move into that class but the work itself will not provide such income.

Conversely, only an idiot believes that it is impossible to make it into that class from nothing. Unlikely yes, impossible, no. If it happens, hard work and/or extreme risk (ie, Bill Gates) will almost certainly play a huge part.

For the rest of us, opportunities abound if you're willing to make them happen. If your only goal is to go to work 40 hours a week and sit around drinking and/or watching TV for the remaining part of your life, you will not, and should not, have much more than what it takes to get along. If you plan on adding kids to your equation, that's your decision and your responsibility to support.

It's fairly simple to have more. Not screwing around in high school (both figuratively and literally if you're too stupid to use protection) being the first step. If you can't be bothered enough to get decent grades in high school you shouldn't expect a high paying job.

As far as the next step, an associates degree or trade school cert. is not hard to get and can pay off fairly quickly although the high end wage is lower unless you move into supervision/management. Quality welders can make a LOT of money but it's like engineering (my field), it can be up and down depending on the economy.

A bachelor's degree IN A DESIRABLE FIELD is the best bang for the buck. If you pick something stupid because you refuse to do anything that people are willing to pay for, once again, your decision - don't whine about it. Degrees like marketing, broadcast journalism, political science, criminal justice, etc. will usually take a LONG time to payoff because you will have to move up a long way before the money gets good. A technical field is, obviously, the best choice as far as bang for the buck. Non MD medical programs (ie, physician's assistant, physical therapy, radiology tech, etc., also payoff fairly well although they sometimes require additional schooling (or are a separate system in and of themselves).

If your degree program is something like history, stained glass, pottery, underwater basket weaving, etc., you had better plan on being poor if you stay in your field.

Sadly, any teaching profession short of university level will also pay poorly. It's not right but it's the way it is and everyone going in knows it. I give teachers a break when it comes to whining about a situation they knew about going in to it. Your vote is the only way to change this.

If the top 3% is your goal you're pretty much doomed to failure. If the top 10% is your goal it's doable and the top 50% doesn't take much at all. Obviously coming from, literally nothing, will make it much more difficult but I know several people who have done it. All 4 are younger than me, have equal or less education than me, and make more than me. My ex-wife dropped out of high school at 17, got her GED, and the last I heard she was making around $75/hour as a scheduler.


--Outlaw.

LEBillfish
01-08-2011, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Well, the cartoon says the "rich man" invested in "Nigerian email backed securities". The real story was that banks invested ordinary people's savings in "mortgages". They did so with the full approval of governments, their regulators, and the public who took out the mortgages.

And in most countries, cuts are being made because governments spent the last decade increasing spending to unsustainable levels. In Britain, for example, we had a 7% structural deficit before the recession began, and the bank bailout is now expected to cost the taxpayer nothing in the long term. The interest rates the banks paid and the profit the government makes on the sale of shares in the nationalised banks is expected to completely offset the costs of the bailout. The cuts are entirely caused by the need to get the unsustainable spending of the noughties under control, and to meet the interest payments on the money that's been borrowed to pay for that spending.

A song done by NPR about Magnetar.....Consider "The Producers" when listening to it..... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...4/americandream.html (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/04/americandream.html)

K2