Person claims its immoral to be rich

[WillHurtDontCare]

Actually what he says in the article is true if luck 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 their hard-earned money. The rich deserve their money.This image posted somewhere on this forum explain it clearly:

View attachment 28717

Images like this are garbage. They dump tens of millions of people into 3 categories and assign lazy generalizations to each.

You can defend the rich without slandering the poor.

I hold no animosity towards rich people simply for being rich; but I do hold plenty of animosity towards rich people who engaged in scummy behavior to become rich, and those people aren't rare.

While I have been more of an action-faking slowlaner myself (breaking that habit), I consider myself very lucky to have even come across the information that I found on this forum and elsewhere. I guarantee that there are plenty of people who are smarter & work harder than I do who will never receive a fraction of the success because they did not come across the right opportunities.

While you can't get rich without taking risks & working very hard, you need some degree of luck to escape the massive conveyor belt that spits out lobotomized individuals who exist purely to serve the economy, in whatever capacity, rather than have worthwhile lives (the script as MJ calls it).

There are plenty of poor people worthy of respect - in fact there are likely many almost-fastlaners among them who things did not work out for. One or two breaks differently and they could have been very rich. To quote Rich Cohen on the thoughts of Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray, one of the richest & most powerful men of the 20 century, when reflecting on the plight of the poor during the Depression:

"It was not that looking at the crowds he thought 'that could be me', it was that he thought 'that is me'. If the dice took one more turn, if the switchman slept through the morning call, and the ripes turned brown."

To borrow from Nassim Taleb, here is a better way to think of the rich vs poor dichotomy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185178176521199621

View: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1185178176521199621

 

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

[Raoul Duke]

Didn't read.

+1

Definitely need a "Ignore Thread" button.

 

[InspireHD]

Dipshits with their hands out are enough to make me want to go completely Galt.

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?

 

[Vigilante]

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?

Yes

 

[GuitarManDan]

There's always going to be haters. It's much easier to shit on successful people so you can sleep better at night than to actually try to improve yourself or learn something new.

It frustrates me how many people out there don't see their potential. They've lost the battle before it even began because they know 100% in their head that they "can't" do something.

 

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

[Raoul Duke]

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

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

 

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

[WillHurtDontCare]

This is called slave morality. Read Nietzsche for more. Or listen to the audio from this video.

The gist (and I am far less elegant than Nietzsche) is that losers rationalize their incompetence into virtues (morality). It is a very elaborate game of sour grapes, and frankly if they were as creative with desiring to win as they are with justifying failure they would be quite successful. Slave morality is a more developed version of the victim complex.

The reality is that they loathe themselves for being unable to get what they want, and they project that self-loathing onto those that have what they want (ressentiment).

And it isn't limited to money. Money is just a game that acts as a medium for human nature to play out on; if money wasn't as important today as it is we would see identical behavior centered around other things. In fact we do! "Beautiful people are shallow." "Muscular people are assholes."

If people are competing then you can bet that the losers are gonna whine about how the game wasn't worth playing anyway.

Though fair warning: all of us exhibit some level of slave morality. It is an inescapable part of human nature. The important part is the degree to which you exhibit it.

 

[rollerskates]

Didn't read, but I wrote the Cliff Notes so you don't have to:

BLAH BLAH BLAH the rich BLAH BLAH BLAH the rich BLAH BLAH BLAH

 

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

[arfadugus]

It's immoral to NOT be rich. Anyone reading this has it so easy compared most people. 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. Saying it's immoral to be rich is either a lame justification, or it's said by someone who isn't a deep thinker. (confusing correlation and causation)

 

[Vigilante]

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

Sorry. Not sorry. Don't care. LOL. Sending you a couple of fake rep dollars as the consolation.

 

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

[Sadik]

The amount of money you make is directly proportional to the amount of value you have created for other people. You may not agree that something is "value" but the market only cares about need and the fulfillment of the need. Fulfill the need of more people and make more money. The article is silly.

 

[Tommo]

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.

Just bought it, will start it tonight, thanks, finished his Ego is The Enemy so I'm impressed by his writing already @G-Man

 

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

[BellaPippin]

If you want a headache and a few hours of your life gone then visit: r/CapitalismVsSocialism

I’m speaking from experience...

OTOH, you might enjoy a lively debate with some career redditors.

And if you want a reason to get drunk head to r/latestagecapitalism

 

[jon.a]

I tried to read it, to check the mindset. I couldn't.

 

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

[Kak]

Excerpts from the article...



Here's the link:

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

Don't just do a drive-by... What are you personally suggesting?

 

[Digamma]

Opened the thread for the memes. Was not disappointed.

 

[OldFaithful]

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 or saving thousands of people from dying of malaria.

I'd bet that the author of this statement is struggling to pay his/her rent, is still paying off a bunch of student loans, and/or knows someone dying of some painful medical condition that is being paid for in it's entirety by the insurance company...which is essentially being paid by other insurers.

The author is displaying the very same selfishness that "the rich" are being accused of.

 

[MidwestLandlord]

Chapter 22, Unscripted , last paragraph.

Does your new book cover EVERYTHING?

 

[arfadugus]

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".

That's what I meant.

 

[juan917]

Don't just do a drive-by... What are you personally suggesting?

well i think its dumb and it drives me nuts that this is starting to become an idea perpetuated on the internet. Crabs in a bucket mentality. I saw this on another forum originally and told him to gtfo

 

[edward ace]

Excerpts from the article...



Here's the link:

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

I just read the article. The writer, who shall remain nameless, assumes or presumes that he or some unnamed entity has the authority to decide what you, I, or anyone, must do with our wealth. By the way, I am still in the slowlane, but I'm speeding.

When I earn money it is my property. That is, I am under no obligation to be generous, help the less fortunate, or otherwise give it away; all just so some immature, left-wing dip-shit can feel good for a couple of minutes.

If that writer is so concerned about the plight and well-being of the poor, children in poverty, and the homeless, then the way for him is clear; HE should be the change he wants to see in the world by becoming rich himself, then giving it away to those whom he deems to be in need.

Me!
I apologize to nobody. I answer to nobody. I justify my actions or the lack thereof to nobody.

I encourage all to read the article he wrote. I don't remember much of it, although barely 5 minutes have passed since I read it, because I am speeding up and getting on the Fastlane.

I leave you with this quote, from the righteous Reverend Ike.
"The best thing you can do for the poor is don't be one of them."

 

[Dignium]

The writer behind this has yet to see the truth that we know. Her argument centers around the “I’m poor because you’re rich” fixed wealth fallacy. While she does see that massive wealth is created because of producing massive marketplace value, however she doesn’t see how that makes everyone wealthier. (did the millions that paid a quarter to watch basketball not get value in exchange?)

I’m not going to get into her side argument that ends with “academics who insist on being rude to servers in restaurants, on the grounds that being polite to them obscures the true brutality of class relations.”

She closes her article with a proposal:
“
We can define something like a “maximum moral income” beyond which it’s obviously inexcusable not to give away all of your money. It might be 5o thousand. Call it 100, though. Per person. With an additional 50 allowed per child. This means two parents with a child can still earn $250,000! That’s so much money. And you can keep it. But everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given. (Personally, I think the maximum moral income is probably much lower, but let’s just set it here so that everyone can agree on it. I do tend to think that moral requirements should be attainable in practice, and a $30k threshold would actually require people experience some deprivation whereas a $100k threshold indisputably still leaves you with an incredibly comfortable lifestyle better than almost any other had by anyone in history.)“

In the writers world:
-if you want to make a large impact requiring more than slowlane-level income & net worth, too bad.
-If you desire a wealthier lifestyle than a low six-figure slowlane lifestyle, you are intentionally allowing others to suffer.
-If you want to help world problems with hand-ups instead of hand-outs, it’s something to be ashamed of in the writers world.

Here is what I believe would happen in this hypothetical scenario:
Her grassroots movement succeeds in instilling “maximum moral income” amoung the majority of people. Wealthy who convert to this ideology give away & blow away their wealth and are reduced to slowlaners and sidewalkers. Most no longer facilitate their business empires. Innovation slows to a crawl because “I’ll be shunned, labeled and treated like a low life live if live richer than my peers. If I shunned from the rewards from the risk I take I’m better off with a job!”.

Sidewalkers complain about the lack of new thrills, slowlaners love the perceived morality boost, the Fastlane is wide open to Fastlaners ignoring the new imperative of the majority. Communists celebrate as they realize that while everybody is not equally wealthy, the communist utopia has finally been reached.

All is well for a couple years in the majority’s minds until societial progress stalls and we start sliding back to tribalism and we begin to lose the ability to make complex technologies because nobody was really incentivized to maintain the gears of production, much less innovate for new and better gears. Civilization withers and fails while people think it’s virtuous to live with less and less (want to see this mentality? Read the comments on articles at LowTechMagazine.com for a couple hours). For the society in this hypothetical scenario, their only hope is the truth comes out & acted upon before civilization irreversibly collapses.

Your beliefs are the foundation to your actions and will define your future. Articles like this can silently & unknowingly lead Fastlaners to not start, sabotage their execution or blow away their Unscription because they believe [insert procession of anti-wealth / anti-capitalist beliefs here]. This is briefly touched upon in Chapter 22 of Unscripted .

 

[AlexandreGoulart]

Excerpts from the article...



Here's the link:

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

Let me guess: the author doesn't have a dime. LOL!
I'm serious (or not, but yeah), with this mindset of guilt, it's almost impossible to become rich, I believe.
There'll be always a self-sabotage lurking to destroy any successful effort to provide more value to the marketplace.

 

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

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

All you need to know about this magazine based on the side bar links...

 

[Pinnacle]

Excerpts from the article...



Here's the link:

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

What's funny about that is that being wealthy is biblical.

It's also necessary for the investment of capital into things that advance our world.

The rich are typically better at investing and allocating money than the rest of us.

 

[AlexandreGoulart]

What's funny about that is that being wealthy is biblical.

It's also necessary for the investment of capital into things that advance our world.

The rich are typically better at investing and allocating money than the rest of us.

Exactly. All the patriarchs and other important servants of the Lord were rich. Had cattle, servants, land, some had even military force. Some were kings and so on.
There's nothing wrong on being rich.

 

[Imgal]

I'm not going into the specifics of the article because the great and good of this forum have done it much better than I could ever do. I do think though even from the headline, this article displays a issue that a lot of us have, not just with money.

Justifying why we are where we are (and if we're justifying it's because we're not there and want to be).

It's like bullies at school, they don't attack unless they feel attacked. My grandparents were the people I was closest to and amazing people, but they resented the "rich" because they weren't. They'd always talk about how different those people were from us and we had to live with what we've been given. I've realised looking back on a lot of things in my life that this profoundly impacted me and how I've approached different things in life. It's no concidence that every time a business venture was starting to blow up and do well I walked away from it. I'd have come up with a 101 reasons why, but the more time I spent reflecting on it, I can see the influence of them and by becoming one of the rich, I'd lose them in the process.

Money is just money. It's not good, it's not bad and its not evil. That comes down to the people who have or don't have it and what they choose to do with it.

 

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

[BellaPippin]

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?

Join us at www.thethreadwherewereallreadingatlasshrugged.com


Edit- Oh sweet baby jesus this is a 2017 post. Why don't you tell me these things.

 

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

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

If you want a headache and a few hours of your life gone then visit: r/CapitalismVsSocialism

I’m speaking from experience...

OTOH, you might enjoy a lively debate with some career redditors.

 

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

[Jack Hammer]

Images like this are garbage. They dump tens of millions of people into 3 categories and assign lazy generalizations to each.

You can defend the rich without slandering the poor.

I hold no animosity towards rich people simply for being rich; but I do hold plenty of animosity towards rich people who engaged in scummy behavior to become rich, and those people aren't rare.

While I have been more of an action-faking slowlaner myself (breaking that habit), I consider myself very lucky to have even come across the information that I found on this forum and elsewhere. I guarantee that there are plenty of people who are smarter & work harder than I do who will never receive a fraction of the success because they did not come across the right opportunities.

While you can't get rich without taking risks & working very hard, you need some degree of luck to escape the massive conveyor belt that spits out lobotomized individuals who exist purely to serve the economy, in whatever capacity, rather than have worthwhile lives (the script as MJ calls it).

There are plenty of poor people worthy of respect - in fact there are likely many almost-fastlaners among them who things did not work out for. One or two breaks differently and they could have been very rich. To quote Rich Cohen on the thoughts of Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray, one of the richest & most powerful men of the 20 century, when reflecting on the plight of the poor during the Depression:

"It was not that looking at the crowds he thought 'that could be me', it was that he thought 'that is me'. If the dice took one more turn, if the switchman slept through the morning call, and the ripes turned brown."

To borrow from Nassim Taleb, here is a better way to think of the rich vs poor dichotomy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1185178176521199621

View: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1185178176521199621


View attachment 28747

The image is fine. The sidewalk/slow lane/fast lane model is a good generalization of mankind's financial attitudes. Notice that under the description of the CEO, it says he worked at minimum wage jobs while struggling to build a business. That little nuance means the description of the minimum wage worker doesn't actually apply to everyone who has a minimum wage job.