Is it bad to be "rich"?

[Toastedlightly]

He seems to totally dismiss any kind of need outside the Individual. Individuals certainly do make Innovations, but they do so because of Societies provisions that make it possible for that Individual to pursue his/her Innovation. Readily available Food, Water, Electricity, etc etc frees the Individual to pursue specific endeavours which would be impossible without those provisions. Otherwise the Individual would only have time to pursue the very Basics of survival.

I like this comment and I agree with it. However, not everyone is capable of making the innovations. It takes a person of a certain mindset, a certain intelligence to actually make use of these resources that are provided.

Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry is capable of being the next Albert (Einstein), Steve (Jobs), Bill (Gates), or Robert (Grubbs). But as you said, these people would not have been able to do what they did without the support of society.

The question then come back to what they "owe" to society and what actual role society played in their achievement.

 

[razor2025]

Are you literate? I specifically stated that I would be perfectly willing to pay for any resources I utilize.

I'm glad we're in agreement. Too bad you're resorting to ad-hom again.

This obviously conveys, to any literate person, that I understand full well that I cannot do everything on my own.

Well, again. In agreement. Glad you're coming around.

But to say that the guy filling potholes so I can get to my lab every day is just as intrinsic to the innovation process as I am is absolute BS. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot.

I see, this is your mental barrier. You just can't see value in other's work. Instead of pothole filler, what about a security guard? Or public security in general? Criminal Justice system? Do they not get credit for preventing others from stealing or destroying your lab? What about the public utilities / infrastructure that feeds your lab? How about ...? Is it really that hard to make that connection? And you're calling him idiot?

The person in charge of producing water gets paid to produce water. The person who innovates gets paid when he innovates. I'm sorry that your axiomatic collectivist viewpoint is so ingrained that you can't admit this possibility.

Who transports the water to consumers? Who comes up with way to produce it? Who contributed to the way you produce water? Do any of those people get compensated along with your "guy who produce water"? You're utterly blinded by self-greed that you just can't see yourself living amongst others.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

There's a surprise. Another purported newcomer who starts churning out retarded straw man arguments parroted straight from the list of RNC-approved propaganda points. WWYBYWB?

Yes, you found us out. Well done. We cannot get anything past you. I mean I cannot! I cannot!

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm actually doing academic research and if YOU do research, you know you build your research on top of hundreds and thousands of other's previous research.

Yes, and I cite their papers when I write mine - they get credit for their work. If I try to commercialize their innovation, then I will be penalized accordingly. I'm going to speculate that you're not an engineer and are probably a social scientist of some sort, meaning your innovations have no commercial value. You therefore deem it necessary for those of us who produce things of commercial value to subsidize your research since it has no commercial value. Amirite?

As for the charity comment, it's really funny how important the small contributors are. Have you ever watched Apollo 13? It's a great factual story / movie. Thousands of engineers contributed to saving 3 guys in space. The movie went out of its way to highlight many of the nameless engineers who devised critical solution to keep those 3 guys alive and safely coming back home. It wasn't just one guy, or one small crack team that brought those guys back home. It was the countless people who devoted their time and effort for a common cause. If you actually open up your mind a bit, you'll see such phenomenon is actually what makes our world work, and we're not in huddling in caves.

Those engineers were innovators and were compensated accordingly. They did their jobs just like the astronauts did theirs. In some cases, this is how innovation is accomplished. In other cases, innovation is achieved by an individual or small group by making a leap off of what has already been accomplished. In your framework, Einstein will be credited just as much with a grand unifying theory of physics as the person who actually discovers it simply because he framed a previous theory. In reality, the guy who discovers it did something Einstein could not. This hardly diminishes Einstein's contributions to physics. On the contrary - your system simply places emphasis on what has already been done rather than crediting future innovation.

See? That's sociopath. Classic example of it too. What prevents the society for kicking you out? The sheer incredible generosity of others. There really is no way to argue against something that's blatantly wrong. I suggest you follow your view to the extreme and live in a unsettled land by yourself.

Wanting to paying for resources I use and not for things I don't use makes me a sociopath? Really? Society doesn't kick me out because I have something of value to offer. Your characterization of this as the "generosity" of society is the outing of your view of individuals as subservient to society. I am your slave because you have done everything for me. The problem with your framework is that I can simply choose to do nothing and contribute nothing. When I do this, society still takes care of me at least as well as when I was making substantial contributions. This is not generosity - this is idiocy. This is easily demonstrated: how long would "society" continue to function if all of its engineers suddenly stopped working? Now, how long would society continue to function if garbage men stopped working? Anyone can collect garbage, but not everyone can do the job of an engineer. In your eyes, as far as I can tell, the two vocations are equal in every way.

 

[razor2025]

I like this comment and I agree with it. However, not everyone is capable of making the innovations. It takes a person of a certain mindset, a certain intelligence to actually make use of these resources that are provided.

Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry is capable of being the next Albert (Einstein), Steve (Jobs), Bill (Gates), or Robert (Grubbs). But as you said, these people would not have been able to do what they did without the support of society.

The question then come back to what they "owe" to society and what actual role society played in their achievement.

It's not an easy question, and hence why we will always have debates on this subject. It's too bad some are unwilling to move forward the debate and keep espousing childish notion of "me,me,me". I think we can only move forward when most people recognize that while they maybe "unique", that they do live amongst a society of others who may indirectly contribute to the consequences of their actions, and visa-versa.

Going back to the thread title. No, it's not "bad" to be rich. However, how you have obtained that wealth and what you intend to do with it most certainly DEFINES you. You want to be the greedy-fvck? Fine, be one. Just don't complain when there's a mob outside ready to barbecue your head on a stick. I can dream right?

 

[Toastedlightly]

Yes, and I cite their papers when I write mine - they get credit for their work. If I try to commercialize their innovation, then I will be penalized accordingly. I'm going to speculate that you're not an engineer and are probably a social scientist of some sort, meaning your innovations have no commercial value. You therefore deem it necessary for those of us who produce things of commercial value to subsidize your research since it has no commercial value. Amirite?

Those engineers were innovators and were compensated accordingly. They did their jobs just like the astronauts did theirs. In some cases, this is how innovation is accomplished. In other cases, innovation is achieved by an individual or small group by making a leap off of what has already been accomplished. In your framework, Einstein will be credited just as much with a grand unifying theory of physics as the person who actually discovers it simply because he framed a previous theory. In reality, the guy who discovers it did something Einstein could not. This hardly diminishes Einstein's contributions to physics. On the contrary - your system simply places emphasis on what has already been done rather than crediting future innovation.

Wanting to paying for resources I use and not for things I don't use makes me a sociopath? Really? Society doesn't kick me out because I have something of value to offer. Your characterization of this as the "generosity" of society is the outing of your view of individuals as subservient to society. I am your slave because you have done everything for me. The problem with your framework is that I can simply choose to do nothing and contribute nothing. When I do this, society still takes care of me at least as well as when I was making substantial contributions. This is not generosity - this is idiocy. This is easily demonstrated: how long would "society" continue to function if all of its engineers suddenly stopped working? Now, how long would society continue to function if garbage men stopped working? Anyone can collect garbage, but not everyone can do the job of an engineer. In your eyes, as far as I can tell, the two vocations are equal in every way.

Well put. Despite her shortcomings as a writer, some of the ideas of Ayn Rand are valid (despite how selfish they may appear).

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Are you literate? I specifically stated that I would be perfectly willing to pay for any resources I utilize. This obviously conveys, to any literate person, that I understand full well that I cannot do everything on my own. But to say that the guy filling potholes so I can get to my lab every day is just as intrinsic to the innovation process as I am is absolute BS. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot. The person in charge of producing water gets paid to produce water. The person who innovates gets paid when he innovates. I'm sorry that your axiomatic collectivist viewpoint is so ingrained that you can't admit this possibility.

Holy shit! It sounds like you just described a new system we can use.

Maybe we could come up with some sort of note. We don't just trade outright, but instead we can "collect" some this note that says I'm entitled to so much of something. So maybe I work really hard growing corn, and people come and give me these notes, and then I can turn around and use these notes to purchase other things I need, like water and food and books and things.

Of course it will be my job to maximize how many notes I have (better for me to sell corn than for me to just ask people for their notes) and that way I can accumulate more notes and use them to get other things I want. And the guy who doesn't want that much stuff? Well, he can do fewer things and collect fewer notes...

I. Am. Genius.


Seriously. I compeltely agree with you. Anyone can fill a pothole, and while it is necessary, it isn't special. Not everyone can sacrifice, think, innovate and profit.

 

[Toastedlightly]

It's not an easy question, and hence why we will always have debates on this subject. It's too bad some are unwilling to move forward the debate and keep espousing childish notion of "me,me,me". I think we can only move forward when most people recognize that while they maybe "unique", that they do live amongst a society of others who may indirectly contribute to the consequences of their actions, and visa-versa.

Going back to the thread title. No, it's not "bad" to be rich. However, how you have obtained that wealth and what you intend to do with it most certainly DEFINES you. You want to be the greedy-fvck? Fine, be one. Just don't complain when there's a mob outside ready to barbecue your head on a stick. I can dream right?

Why does someone's use of their money anger you? Taxes are the form our society uses to "give back" or to "repay" the debt that you have accumulated from society's assistance. After all debts have been paid, anyone is free to do with their money as they wish. Burn it, give it away, horde it, do what ever.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm glad we're in agreement. Too bad you're resorting to ad-hom again.

It's a statement of fact. He failed to read and understand what I wrote. What I wrote was in perfect English. Therefore, he is either intentionally resorting to fallacy or illiterate - take your pick.

Well, again. In agreement. Glad you're coming around.

I never stated otherwise. I'm going to assume you're in the same boat as Sandorski at this point.

I see, this is your mental barrier. You just can't see value in other's work. Instead of pothole filler, what about a security guard? Or public security in general? Criminal Justice system? Do they not get credit for preventing others from stealing or destroying your lab? What about the public utilities / infrastructure that feeds your lab? How about ...? Is it really that hard to make that connection? And you're calling him idiot?

I see the value in other peoples' work and I have no problem compensating them for what they do. I've been a construction worker, a roofer, a janitor, a vacuum cleaner salesman, and done research for the USAF, a wastewater treatment plant, the VA, and with MIT and Oxford. I've done the jobs at the lowest point on the totem pole and the highest. Anyone can do the jobs at the low end. Very few can do the jobs at the high end. The people at the low end have value in that they take care of the work requiring less mental work so that those with higher ambitions and/or mental capacities can spend more time on them. I could easily clean my own lab, but that would be a waste of my time because my time is worth more than the $20/hour a janitor makes. The janitor is remunerated for cleaning my lab rather than getting royalties from the patents my lab generates because he is not an innovator - he is a janitor. Is it really that hard to see the distinction?

Who transports the water to consumers? Who comes up with way to produce it? Who contributed to the way you produce water? Do any of those people get compensated along with your "guy who produce water"? You're utterly blinded by self-greed that you just can't see yourself living amongst others.

Engineers do all of the above and are compensated well for doing it. Why does their producing water entitle them to anything more than what I pay them for their product? If I cure cancer, does that entitle me to a share of their income that they generate by producing water? That's absurd. Why does my paying for their product/service not cover my debt to them for that product/service? Why do I still owe them anything?

 

[sandorski]

Are you literate? I specifically stated that I would be perfectly willing to pay for any resources I utilize. This obviously conveys, to any literate person, that I understand full well that I cannot do everything on my own. But to say that the guy filling potholes so I can get to my lab every day is just as intrinsic to the innovation process as I am is absolute BS. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot. The person in charge of producing water gets paid to produce water. The person who innovates gets paid when he innovates. I'm sorry that your axiomatic collectivist viewpoint is so ingrained that you can't admit this possibility.

Then why all the angst? Oh that's right, you don't agree on what the Price of those Resources are worth.

 

[nakedfrog]

Love of money is the root of all evil.

 

[CycloWizard]

Then why all the angst? Oh that's right, you don't agree on what the Price of those Resources are worth.

No, because you want me to pay for resources I'm not using. You claim that writing checks to people sitting on their couches all day doing nothing is the price of a resource which contributes to innovation. I call bullshit.

 

[CycloWizard]

See? That's sociopath. Classic example of it too. What prevents the society for kicking you out? The sheer incredible generosity of others. There really is no way to argue against something that's blatantly wrong. I suggest you follow your view to the extreme and live in a unsettled land by yourself.

I just realized how twisted this statement really is. You have labeled me as a sociopath for volunteering to pay my fair share based on an objective standard of what constitutes "fair."

 

[sandorski]

No, because you want me to pay for resources I'm not using. You claim that writing checks to people sitting on their couches all day doing nothing is the price of a resource which contributes to innovation. I call bullshit.

Except you are. In fact, you are being given a discount from the true Cost.

 

[CycloWizard]

Except you are.

I am WHAT? This is why I called you illiterate - because you don't know, or choose not to follow, the rules of the English language. This is a sentence fragment which does not convey an idea. Please revise.

In fact, you are being given a discount from the true Cost.

What is the true cost? How is it determined? I have suggested an objective, equitable way to determine the true cost and agreed to pay it without any qualms.

 

[sandorski]

I am WHAT? This is why I called you illiterate - because you don't know, or choose not to follow, the rules of the English language. This is a sentence fragment which does not convey an idea. Please revise.

What is the true cost? How is it determined? I have suggested an objective, equitable way to determine the true cost and agreed to pay it without any qualms.

The True Cost is the Cost to provide Services. Seeing as how their is a Deficit(both now and in the Past) you have been Underpaying for the Services you are using.

 

[dmcowen674]

Love of money is the root of all evil.

Golden Calf

 

[razor2025]

Yes, and I cite their papers when I write mine - they get credit for their work. If I try to commercialize their innovation, then I will be penalized accordingly. I'm going to speculate that you're not an engineer and are probably a social scientist of some sort, meaning your innovations have no commercial value. You therefore deem it necessary for those of us who produce things of commercial value to subsidize your research since it has no commercial value. Amirite?

I think I can see your personality now and why you have such conclusion. No, I'm not a social scientist. I'm actually studying how to visualize information using computers. As for your conclusion, you couldn't be more wrong, and it's sad. Commercial entities "borrows" idea from social science research without giving it credit at all. You really believe all these social network "success" aren't grounded by years of research? Further more, discrediting and ENTIRE science as "valueless" really shows how trivial your mind is. There's nothing more to discuss with you, as the gap of understanding is FAR too great for you to go across.

Those engineers were innovators and were compensated accordingly. They did their jobs just like the astronauts did theirs. In some cases, this is how innovation is accomplished. In other cases, innovation is achieved by an individual or small group by making a leap off of what has already been accomplished. In your framework, Einstein will be credited just as much with a grand unifying theory of physics as the person who actually discovers it simply because he framed a previous theory. In reality, the guy who discovers it did something Einstein could not. This hardly diminishes Einstein's contributions to physics. On the contrary - your system simply places emphasis on what has already been done rather than crediting future innovation.

Your system is equally ridiculous. Einstein was able to produce his work, because of literally hundreds of years of work done in Physics and Math. Just because some academic work has become common knowledge, doesn't mean that we should erase its value in society. In fact, any academic research is implicitly built with recognition that it would NOT be possible without the long-line of heritage that has lead to it. Plus, my idea wasn't "normalize" the credit. All I wanted you to recognize is that there is significant "non-visible" contributions made by people who NEVER gets mentioned or cited.

Wanting to paying for resources I use and not for things I don't use makes me a sociopath? Really? Society doesn't kick me out because I have something of value to offer. Your characterization of this as the "generosity" of society is the outing of your view of individuals as subservient to society. I am your slave because you have done everything for me. The problem with your framework is that I can simply choose to do nothing and contribute nothing. When I do this, society still takes care of me at least as well as when I was making substantial contributions. This is not generosity - this is idiocy. This is easily demonstrated: how long would "society" continue to function if all of its engineers suddenly stopped working? Now, how long would society continue to function if garbage men stopped working? Anyone can collect garbage, but not everyone can do the job of an engineer. In your eyes, as far as I can tell, the two vocations are equal in every way.

Yes, it does make you a sociopath. The fact that you "only want to pay for what I recognize" is sociopathic.The fact that you view "anyone can collect garbage" also shows how "retarded" (and I do mean the text-book definition here) you are. Viewing real world as a closed-end system is your ultimate flaw. Again, I'm not saying that societal value of engineer = garbage collector. However, I disagree with the notion that garbage collector's value is significantly lower than the engineer.

 

[CycloWizard]

The True Cost is the Cost to provide Services. Seeing as how their is a Deficit(both now and in the Past) you have been Underpaying for the Services you are using.

Wrong. The government is taking my money which is intended to pay for these resources and squandering it on other things. It is then taking even more money from lenders and squandering it on additional things. If I want to pay someone for a service, but they have a huge gambling problem, am I underpaying for their service simply because they find themselves in a bad financial situation? No. That person is simply an idiot for getting themselves in that situation, just as the people who constitute our government are idiots for getting themselves into our current situation.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think I can see your personality now and why you have such conclusion. No, I'm not a social scientist. I'm actually studying how to visualize information using computers. As for your conclusion, you couldn't be more wrong, and it's sad. Commercial entities "borrows" idea from social science research without giving it credit at all. You really believe all these social network "success" aren't grounded by years of research? Further more, discrediting and ENTIRE science as "valueless" really shows how trivial your mind is. There's nothing more to discuss with you, as the gap of understanding is FAR too great for you to go across.

Asshole. Stop "quoting" things that I never said or go find a fire to die in.

Your system is equally ridiculous. Einstein was able to produce his work, because of literally hundreds of years of work done in Physics and Math. Just because some academic work has become common knowledge, doesn't mean that we should erase its value in society. In fact, any academic research is implicitly built with recognition that it would NOT be possible without the long-line of heritage that has lead to it. Plus, my idea wasn't "normalize" the credit. All I wanted you to recognize is that there is significant "non-visible" contributions made by people who NEVER gets mentioned or cited.

You're right - Einstein had no original thoughts which contributed to his fundamental discoveries. The photoelectric effect, the Einstein viscosity equation, and relativity were inevitably discovered and published by one person in the same "Miracle Year" simply because people before him had done stuff. He contributed nothing to the process and was simply another cog in the wheel. Therefore, he should receive the same compensation as the guy who emptied his garbage, right comrade?

Yes, it does make you a sociopath. The fact that you "only want to pay for what I recognize" is sociopathic.The fact that you view "anyone can collect garbage" also shows how "retarded" (and I do mean the text-book definition here) you are.

Learn English before calling your betters retarded. The fact that I view something can never show how anything. Please try again.

Viewing real world as a closed-end system is your ultimate flaw. Again, I'm not saying that societal value of engineer = garbage collector. However, I disagree with the notion that garbage collector's value is significantly lower than the engineer.

So you disagree with the laws of supply and demand? Why am I not surprised? You're a communist, nothing more.

 

[sandorski]

Wrong. The government is taking my money which is intended to pay for these resources and squandering it on other things. It is then taking even more money from lenders and squandering it on additional things. If I want to pay someone for a service, but they have a huge gambling problem, am I underpaying for their service simply because they find themselves in a bad financial situation? No. That person is simply an idiot for getting themselves in that situation, just as the people who constitute our government are idiots for getting themselves into our current situation.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what Services are valuable or not to you. You were raised in a Society that I assume you prefer over others and as such you are fully aware of the obligations of living within that Society. Part of those obligations are that you have limited choice on where your $Tax go, not No Choice, but limited choice. I can almost guarantee you that many Ancestors before you objected to various Services that you not only take advantage of freely, but also you rely on to achieve what you have achieved. It is very likely that there are Services you now disagree with and/or will someday Disagree with that will allow some Future Innovator to accomplish their thing as well.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking you know everything. Protip: You don't.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Your system is equally ridiculous. Einstein was able to produce his work, because of literally hundreds of years of work done in Physics and Math. Just because some academic work has become common knowledge, doesn't mean that we should erase its value in society. In fact, any academic research is implicitly built with recognition that it would NOT be possible without the long-line of heritage that has lead to it. Plus, my idea wasn't "normalize" the credit. All I wanted you to recognize is that there is significant "non-visible" contributions made by people who NEVER gets mentioned or cited.

You're right - Einstein had no original thoughts which contributed to his fundamental discoveries. The photoelectric effect, the Einstein viscosity equation, and relativity were inevitably discovered and published by one person in the same "Miracle Year" simply because people before him had done stuff. He contributed nothing to the process and was simply another cog in the wheel. Therefore, he should receive the same compensation as the guy who emptied his garbage, right comrade?

You missed razor's point. He wasn't saying that Einstein didn't have any original insights which contributed to his scientific discoveries. What razor was saying was that Einstein built upon discoveries and observations of previous scientists, which is a fair statement, as very few discoveries or insights are independently made (ie Ramanujan).

Frankly, I don't see razor's comment being that different than Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers".

 

[CycloWizard]

Sorry, you don't get to decide what Services are valuable or not to you. You were raised in a Society that I assume you prefer over others and as such you are fully aware of the obligations of living within that Society. Part of those obligations are that you have limited choice on where your $Tax go, not No Choice, but limited choice. I can almost guarantee you that many Ancestors before you objected to various Services that you not only take advantage of freely, but also you rely on to achieve what you have achieved. It is very likely that there are Services you now disagree with and/or will someday Disagree with that will allow some Future Innovator to accomplish their thing as well.

You're right. You get to decide what services are valuable or not. I have no say. I have no representation in our government. My obligations are imposed by those who do not impose the same obligations on themselves. My only out is to stop being a productive member of society. What's mine is yours, but what's your isn't mine.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking you know everything. Protip: You don't.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that you know anything. Protip: you don't. Your whole argument is simply that of a third grader, "Neener neener - my politicians are in power and I can take whatever I want!" I combat this by producing nothing of value so that you can't take anything from me. This is my way of flipping illiterate assholes like you the bird.

 

[bfdd]

I like this comment and I agree with it. However, not everyone is capable of making the innovations. It takes a person of a certain mindset, a certain intelligence to actually make use of these resources that are provided.

Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry is capable of being the next Albert (Einstein), Steve (Jobs), Bill (Gates), or Robert (Grubbs). But as you said, these people would not have been able to do what they did without the support of society.

The question then come back to what they "owe" to society and what actual role society played in their achievement.

... they have society to thank for their greatness? Not really.

 

[CycloWizard]

You missed razor's point. He wasn't saying that Einstein didn't have any original insights which contributed to his scientific discoveries. What razor was saying was that Einstein built upon discoveries and observations of previous scientists, which is a fair statement, as very few discoveries or insights are independently made (ie Ramanujan).

Frankly, I don't see razor's comment being that different than Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers".

That is what I have been saying all along, yet due to what I can only describe as issues with literacy, people have decided that I believe Einstein and everyone else didn't gain any insight from previous work. If you read the thread, you'll never find a claim stating anything similar to that. I've read Einstein's own writings on the subject. I've cited over 500 distinct articles in my own publications. Frankly, the only way anyone could arrive at the conclusion that I think a discovery is completely achieved by the innovator is illiteracy, idiocy, or strawman argument. The only claim I've made is that the janitor's contribution to innovation is not equal to that of the PhD scientist in the lab actually doing the work. Anyone who disagrees with this assertion is an idiot and/or a communist (if there is even a difference).