Person claims its immoral to be rich

[Kak]

The accusatory party always thinks that they, given vast riches, would do something better with it than you. I laugh at that crap because there is a reason they aren't rich.

I can guarantee you this guy lives in either an apartment or a home, built by a rich guy. He probably drives a car that someone got rich producing and manufacturing. He definitely typed this article on some sort of digital device that got someone rich. He probably pays all the bills on those because of some rich guy employing him. The list goes on and on and on. The world is what it is today because people took it upon themselves to create and lead. If he wants a glowing example of a society devoid of motivation for creativity, he needs to look no further than North Korea.

The entire civilized world runs on business. Businesses that wouldn't be there without the motivation by the markets. Never, in the history of the world, has there been a better economic system for the lower and middle classes than free market capitalism. There is a reason the poorest people in the United States still make more money in a month working at McDonalds than the average yearly income in Uganda. Because 241 years ago, the United States embraced capitalism.

 

[JAJT]

Don't allow that kind of garbage and nonsense into your head.

The only people whose opinions I listen to when it comes to how wealth "should" be distributed is self made wealthy folks as their perspective tends to be based on reality and their opinions tend to be genuinely thought provoking. I may still not agree with it at that point, but at least I know the source isn't a deranged moron.

 

[MidwestLandlord]

Don't allow that kind of garbage and nonsense into your head.

This.

Do y'all just go looking for this crap?

The author of that article did his public service for the day...he gave you a reason to be angry.

 

[JAJT]

Read Trust Me I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday.

For what it's worth - I suggest EVERYONE read this book.

One of the most eye-opening first-hand accounts of exactly how the media makes it to your eyeballs and how bullshit it can be. This may not be "surprising" because most intelligent people suspect that the news is manufactured but this is a book on HOW IT HAPPENS.

Easily one of my most recommended books of all time.

 

[Fox]

Didn't read.

 

[G-Man]

This.

Do y'all just go looking for this crap?

The author of that article did his public service for the day...he gave you a reason to be angry.

You gotta open your mind to the fact that this dipshit is ironically making money by causing two reactions:

• Making losers feel better.
• Making others feel outraged.

It's the Michael Moore business model.

Read Trust Me I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday. It's the business model that made outlets like HuffPo and Breitbart into monsters. Outrage is the currency of the internet news cycle.

Like @MidwestLandlord hints at... the best thing you can do is not read this shit. Better yet, don't even click on it or visit the page when you see a headline like that. Deprive that F*cker of his 1 millionth of a penny in ad revenue.

 

[MidwestLandlord]

We are so lucky to be born in this part of the world (not just America) and in this time in history. It is our duty to help the world become a better place.

I disagree with this so much.

I don't have the duty to help just because I was born American and have opportunity not afforded to others in the world.

That's no different than what the OP's post is about (the guy who wrote the article, not @juan917 )

Just because someone has something others don't (wealth; born in a capitalistic society) does NOT make them obligated to use those resources to improve the lives of other's that have less.

Now, if someone has more, and CHOOSES to help others...that's living right in my book.

I give my TIME and my MONEY to help the cause I believe in (Suicide prevention), because I CAN, because I WANT to, and because it is a cause that means a great deal to me.

I would rather my moral character guide me in improving the world, and not some false construct of moral obligation and duty created by society based on the guilt of having "more".

 

[G-Man]

The accusatory party always thinks that they, given vast riches, would do something better with it than you. I laugh at that crap because there is a reason they aren't rich.

I can guarantee you this guy lives in either an apartment or a home, built by a rich guy. He probably drives a car that someone got rich producing and manufacturing. He definitely typed this gay article on some sort of digital device that got someone rich. He probably pays all the bills on those because of some rich guy employing him. The list goes on and on and on. The world is what it is today because people took it upon themselves to create and lead. If he wants a glowing example of a society devoid of motivation for creativity, he needs to look no further than North Korea.

The entire civilized world runs on business. Businesses that wouldn't be there without the motivation by the markets. Never, in the history of the world, has there been a better economic system for the lower and middle classes than free market capitalism. There is a reason the poorest people in the United States still make more money in a month working at McDonalds than the average yearly income in Uganda. Because 241 years ago, the United States embraced capitalism.

It's funny you mention Africa, because that's where I lived amongst the social justice types. The drive their Japanese car to their fully electrified compound to write an article critical of capitalism on their apple computer, and then hop on an Air France flight to America any time they need to see a real doctor. F*ckers.

EDIT: When I made my statement about accepting funds from USAID only to be lectured about the evils of Capitalism we were sitting in an air conditioned room on a Skype conference call with people in several different countries at a large conference table covered in MacBooks, not 12 hours after we had all taken commercial flight to get there.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

I heard Atlas Shrugged was much better. So, if your comment was in reference to Atlas Shrugged, do you recommend reading it?

Atlas Shrugged is one book everyone should read, whether they think they'll consider it "evil" or not. It's one of the only books I've ever read or heard about where you can give it to two different people and ask them to describe it and you'd swear they were talking about two separate books.

The "bleeding heart" liberal folks will say:

- Promotes greed
- Evil
- Unrealistic
- Shits on the poor
- Ignores all the hardships that the lower classes struggle with
- Proves that the rich would rather leave society than help even one other person

(for what it's worth these folks are so ridiculous they often say this about the book without ever having read it...)

The "wealthy minded" folks will say:

- Promotes independent thought
- Be responsible for yourself
- Intelligence is paramount
- Add tremendous value and receive tremendous rewards
- Don't let others steal your efforts
- You can't be forced to think and produce against your will
- Demand your worth
- You should get what you deserve, not what you need

It's an excellent example of how two different mindsets can take the same input and get such different output from it. It's a perfect analogy for how these two different folks live their lives between the victim mentality and the responsibility mentality. One will complain about a problem, the other will see an opportunity. One will demand more because they need it, the other will go out and get it.

I read Atlas Shrugged first and Fountainhead second. Atlas is the better book BY FAR. Fountainhead was more of a story with vague ideas of what Rand was trying to convey. Atlas Shrugged is where she figured out what she was trying to say and said it perfectly.

(There are still problems with Atlas though... it's written rather poorly as far as novels go and I don't know a single person who likes the 90 page diatribe of a radio broadcast in the middle but it's still a damn important read and one of my favorite books of all time).

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Does your new book cover EVERYTHING?

It makes a statement about crap like this article.

if it is immoral to be rich, then i am stupid teach me about morality and give me all of your money.

At which point the author would say, "Woah, wait a sec, I only make $80,000 a year. An immoral salary starts at $80,001 and above.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Didn't read.

+1

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[mrarcher]

That article was dangerous. It almost made me question things.

But you guys in the thread got me back on track.

Yes, the things some rich people choose to spend their money on are silly and useless, and that money could save thousands of lives in another part of the world.

However, if they didn't have the right to buy whatever the hell they wanted, there wouldn't have been any motivation to become that rich in the first place, and all of the benefits to the common man of "trickle down economics" would never have taken place.

Buying the $300,000 Ferrari pays for the engineers, designers, mechanics, the single mom receptionist that has to feed her kids, the guys digging in the quarries for steel etc. Even the silly and useless purchases benefits people low down in the income scale.

 

[Longinus]

The same principle applies to the first world as well. Denmark did a study where the state varied the duration of unemployment benefits. They discovered that the amount of time it took people to get a job was directly correlated with the duration of their benefits. The smaller the safety net, the faster people got back to work.

100%. My sister lives in subsidized housing and her rent is based on how much she earns.
"What's the point of earning more if I have to pay more rent?" => Is the first question that pops in their heads. This way people are motivated to stay low.

Side note: when I visit her with my 10 yo Volvo, I have the oldest car of the whole street.

 

[DVU]

No point in reading that shit.

It just annoys me to read that negative stuff.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

See here's the thing. My wife and I have had many occasions to discuss this guy's theory, as his viewpoint is shared and articulated by pious, Pharisaical redistribution activists across the United States. They're in every city, every church, and every family.

We recently became aware of a church that was raising several million dollars for expansion. Someone was speculating on how that money would be better spent. However, the same person had NO IDEA HOW MUCH the same donors gave to the charities their critic articulated they should be funding. Perhaps the same people who were paying for the church expansion gave 10x that much to worthwhile organizations. Who knows? None of your damn business, that's who.

Bill Gates is often criticized for his tremendous wealth. Bloomberg reports Mr Gates, to date, "has donated more than $30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which so far has given away $35 billion in grants to fight hunger, disease and poverty".

Take any underachieving, poor social justice redistribution warrior, and give them a few million bucks. They'll be joining me on a beach chair at the Ritz Carlton, and complaining about how much the government is taking in taxes. See, when envious people come in to wealth, suddenly their world view changes.

Poor people don't fund missions. Poor people don't feed poor people. Poor people don't invent, employ, or invest. Consider the fact that the very gift of wealth might be in place so that the responsible can use it (or the portion they deem appropriate) for the betterment of society as a whole.

Its not my fault the jackass writer of the article I didn't read is poor. He should spend less time writing drivel, and more time hanging out at this forum. Then, he'd not be a slug parasite and he'd be able to fuel the very causes he thinks YOU should fuel.

Dipshits with their hands out are enough to make me want to go completely Galt. They're very generous... with YOUR money.

My wife and I have been accused of "hating poor people" as we have given, and given, and given (and I am not just talking about our tax bill.) We don't hate poor people. We love them. We undergird them. We find opportunities to help them. We just don't want to BE poor.
Give pious poor people money, and suddenly they're buying filet mignons and writing the occasional check to the orphanage.

There isn't a single one of them that would turn down a stack of cash. Not one. Nor should they.

Because money makes people happy.

Honestly, Vig I respect the outrage, but I don't bother explaining any of these things anymore. I gave 6 years of my youth, all of my savings, and my health (in the form of malaria and cholera) working trying to help poor people in a 3rd world backwater. I watched multiple social justice types come, last two weeks, then puss out and go home the first time there was no power or wifi for a few days.

I became a pariah because I suggested that you don't get moral credit for being generous with someone else's money. (I was arguing that we shouldn't accept funding from USAID)

There's no point in saying any of this, because the people that understand it don't need to hear you say it.

 

[InspireHD]

Yes

Do it.

Atlas Shrugged is one book everyone should read...

The Revolutionary Philosophy of Atlas Shrugged | The New Individualist | The Atlas Society

I ended up taking the book off my bookshelf and began reading it last night. I read some more this morning and find myself reading a page or two every time I pass by it. It's daunting at 1000+ pages, but I'm intrigued enough that I'm going to go for it. I'll probably only read it before I go to bed so it might take me a little while.

I started reading that link, but don't want to read any spoilers. I stopped at this quote, "However, the final title, Atlas Shrugged, concisely symbolizes the book’s plot: the rebellion of the unrecognized and often persecuted creative heroes who bear the rest of the world on their shoulders." Now, I'm really interested!

Thanks for all of the recommendations and the confirmations!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

The article is horribly misguided, and generally ignorant of basic economic facts:

Foreign aid to poor countries keeps them impoverished. Whatever you send, you are sending free goods that the local entrepreneurs cannot compete with (can't compete with free), thus destroying the local economy and leaving the people in a state of permanent desolation.

The same principle applies to the first world as well. Denmark did a study where the state varied the duration of unemployment benefits. They discovered that the amount of time it took people to get a job was directly correlated with the duration of their benefits. The smaller the safety net, the faster people got back to work.

Finally, the lives that are ruined in the wake of winning the lottery, or of hitting the NBA jackpot, are testament to the fact that there is something more that separates the rich from the poor, than the amount of money they can access.

I know poor people, I grew up with and was surrounded by them. They are poor because of their choices, not because somebody else out there has more toys.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[QDF]

Excerpts from the article...
It’s one thing to argue that you got rich legitimately. It’s another to explain why you feel justified in spending your wealth upon houses and sculptures rather than helping some struggling people pay their rent or paying off a bunch of student loans

Didn't read all of it, but the guy clearly has his thinking backwards.

He's suggesting "helping some struggling people pay their rent or paying off a bunch of student loans" by giving them unearned money, which is the most immoral thing of all.

The rich person would be helping these "struggling people" more by buying even more houses and sculptures. Not stealing their dignity by giving them unearned money towards a more "comfortable" living.

 

[MidwestLandlord]

the best thing you can do is not read this shit. Better yet, don't even click on it or visit the page when you see a headline like that. Deprive that F*cker of his 1 millionth of a penny in ad revenue.

But yet, I clicked on this thread...even though I KNEW what it would be.

Then commented on it.

Then commented again just now.

I need to work harder lol

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The-J]

Simple economics explains why this is wrong.

Here's some truths for you, author of this stupid article. First: capitalism does not guarantee, nor does it promote, an equal distribution of wealth. Second: small amounts of wealth given to the poor have a greater impact on the lives of the poor than wealth saved or invested by the rich. These are facts backed up by economics.

However, you have to consider that if, 100 years ago, the 'wealthy' gave all their money to the poor, the poor would have simply spent it on improving their own lives. They would spend it on living expenses. They'd buy a Model T. They'd get rudimentary washing machines. They'd get the bare necessities of life...

... and their lives would stagnate.

No growth, because no money is being invested in the market. No technological advancement, because money would not be spent on R+D and taking risks but instead fulfilling the lives of the poor.

The poor are not thinking about how to tackle climate change. The poor are not trying to build electric cars and develop alternative fuel sources. The poor are not trying to solve the problems caused by urban sprawl.

The poor are thinking about how the F*ck their rent will get paid and how to keep their kids fed.

The poor lead lives more comfortable than ever before, thanks in very large part to the wealthy.

Some people might argue that the rich CAUSED the problems we face today. My response to that is... go live in the woods then. Go find a parcel of land in Buttfuckistan and start farming. See how you like that life. See how long you survive. There were sacrifices that had to be made in order to facilitate the lives we live today, and the wealthy are using their resources to fund the smartest people who are trying to solve the problems we have (including, yes, poverty). Believe it or not, even oil companies are investing in alternative fuel sources.

Morality has nothing to do with business. There are moral people and immoral people who are rich... just as there are moral and immoral people who are poor.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

I'm just watching the thread and hoping @Kak has a response.

 

[Kak]

Not to derail the thread or anything, but is this a reference to Atlas Shrugged? The reason why I ask is because I bought the book forever ago along with The Fountainhead and only made it half way through The Fountainhead because it was a really long book.

I heard Atlas Shrugged was much better. So, if your comment was in reference to Atlas Shrugged, do you recommend reading it?

Do it.

 

[JAJT]

It's daunting at 1000+ pages

For comparison's sake:

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy - 473,000
Atlas Shrugged - 645,000 words
The Harry Potter Series - Around 1,000,000

Read it anyway

 

[MJ DeMarco]

EDIT: When I made my statement about accepting funds from USAID only to be lectured about the evils of Capitalism we were sitting in an air conditioned room on a Skype conference call with people in several different countries at a large conference table covered in MacBooks, not 12 hours after we had all taken commercial flight to get there.

Chapter 22, Unscripted , last paragraph.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

Chapter 22, Unscripted , last paragraph.

Vig triggered me and so I had to be in my safe space for a while, but I got around around to reading this this morning - it's sad. For the iphone wielding kid in your example, the ignorance is staggering but at least conceivable. I worked with people that had PhDs from top tier universities, that still believed basically the same thing....

What's interesting though, is that since that chapter is couched in the context of consumerism v producerism, I realized that while I'm not a lazy parasite or in debt trying to keep up with the joneses, the consumerist script is still pretty deeply embedded in my worldview, since I naturally tend to think about getting money instead of producing things.

Don't worry, I still blame @Vigilante for my bad morning

 

[jsk29]

 

[Raoul Duke]

Excerpts from the article...

Here's the link:

It’s Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich | Current Affairs

 

[QDF]

The OP (of the excerpt) was just some random dude on the internet.

It's easy to ignore and just say "didn't read" and move on with your day.

The actual problem is that there are real people out in the word, real leaders and influencers, who have this same philosophy.


Perfect examples below...both within the past week...

Professors who teach the next generation spreading this same garbage, and politicians who want to mold society in this view. THAT you can't ignore so easily, because eventually it will affect you.

'Practice What You Preach': Tucker Battles Prof Who Wants Higher Taxes For Rich

French candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon wants a 100% tax on the rich

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[amp0193]

That article was dangerous. It almost made me question things.

But you guys in the thread got me back on track.

Yes, the things some rich people choose to spend their money on are silly and useless, and that money could save thousands of lives in another part of the world.

However, if they didn't have the right to buy whatever the hell they wanted, there wouldn't have been any motivation to become that rich in the first place, and all of the benefits to the common man of "trickle down economics" would never have taken place.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Icecreamchild]

Actually what he says in the article is true if luck ( aka being in the right place at the right time i.e Events) is the only difference between the rich and the poor. But, we know that's not true. We know it's very hard to earn a lot of money. So, the rich have all the right to keep/do whatever they wish with their hard-earned money. The rich deserve their money. This image posted somewhere on this forum explain it clearly: