Political Discussions
Food for thought.
Posted by Anok • 8/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: ideas, stories
There are two little stories that I've always liked, the first one sums up my thoughts on life and economics quite nicely - the second is an interesting look at the human need for community.
" A fisherman is relaxing on the warm sand under a tree.
Comes along a rich business man.
-Hello, says the business man can I have a few minutes of your time?
-Sure, says the fisherman
-I can't help but notice that it is still early, yet you're relaxing?
-Yes I've already catch all the fish my family and I can eat for the day.
-If you went working anyways you would have twice that fish.
-And what would I do with those extra fish?
-You would sell them and earn extra money.
-And what would I do with that money?
-You could buy a second boat and employ some people and catch even more fish. The when you have enough money you could buy tens of boats and earn so much money that you wouldn't have to work no more.
-Oh and what would I do then?
-You could relax and enjoy life said the business man
-isn't that exactly what I am doing now? Asked the fisherman"
Here are a couple variations on that story:
www.livelearninvest.com/blog/the-businessman-and-the-fisherman-story/
deyan.dyankov.name/2007/11/12/businessman-fisherman/
www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=fisherman+vs+businessman&id=20acc...
You can read the other story here:
www.kousi.gr.jp/kousi/syoukai/hp-siryou/stone-soup.html
In the version I have, the villagers at first refused to share what little food they had (each house had one ingredient) because they didn't have enough to feed themselves, and then the traveler made the Stone Soup.
Discuss!
User Comments
-
There's a point there, though I do think that some people really find meaning from that kind of achievement. It's actually kind of sad, because it makes it difficult (though not impossible) for them to find Christ after that:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." -Luke 14: 26, KJV-
He can't find Christ after what? (I'm asking honestly because I'm not sure which story you're talking about
) -
Not can't. Just hard:
Matthew 19: 16-24. Also the passage I just quoted, which gives a hint as to why. Together these two form a pretty complete picture.
It is worth noting, however, that while Christ does say "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle..." he also says "all things are possible to God."
Part of it is this kind of stuff becomes such a part of their identity that it becomes hard for them to truly worship anything, as their life and spirit is so filled. Not that it's not already hard, but it just becomes yet more difficult.
-
-
Absolutely true, as long as the fisherman needs nothing but fish, he'll be all set.
When fish isn't going to cut it, he'll be all F-ed.
Shortsighted at best.... -
Sweet story. But unfortunately hon, the world don't run on fish. Thank God it doesn't because with Obama piling up the debt into the trillions, IMAGINE THE SMELL!!!
-
Erik and Antics - yo guys have missed the point entirely. The fable is about cutting out the BS middle man in life. Not about living on fish alone. (Although many cultures actually do).
Our economy is based on the assumption that we need a lot of money - and we need to accumulate it so that we can can buy things that help us accumulate more money. And why are we urged to accumulate so much? so that at some point we may have enough money so that we no longer have to accumulate it anymore - and we can then spend our time enjoying the things we want to do instead of doing what we don't want to do so that we can accumulate money.
Why bother going through all of that when we can simply take and use only what we need, and spend all of our time doing exactly what we want to do?
Why spend out lives toiling away in the hopes of gaining enough money to be able to accumulate all of the things we need to save ourselves time and energy because we've devoted all of that time an energy to making that money - when we could simply be enjoying life, and doing all the little things we outsource daily ourselves?
Our current lifestyle model makes absolutely no sense. I have to work. Why do you have to work? so I can make money. Why do you need to wrk as much as you do? So I can make more money. WHy do you need more money? SO I can pay for all of the things I need to make even more money, and pay for other people to do all of the things i no longer have time to do myself.
Why don't you have time to do it yourself? Because I have to work. Why do you have to work? So I can make money....So you're spending money to be able to work? No, I'm spending money so I can make money so I can retire and not have to work so I have time to enjoy my life and family.
Why not just slow down, make only what you need to be comfortable, and retire now so that you can enjoy your life and your family right now?
because I have to work....
It's absolute insanity.
There are indigenous tribes and cultures that live outside of this ideology where the villagers work maybe three hours a day to get everything they need. Food, shelter, supplies etc. The rest of their days are spent in leisure, enjoying their children, their lives, their homes/village. They have no crime, no stress related health problems, long life spans (into their 100's - some of the longest living people in the world are from remote villages who do not have this concept of work/money/ratrace).
the work that they do is labor intensive, and some days require more effort than others. But when the work is done, it's done and they all partake of their bounty.
Why do we run around like idiots trying to accumulate money so that we can do exactly what they are doing, only not as well?-
Anok hon, I got the point of the story. But I was trying to show you that in today's society it isn't realistic. When the power company sends the bill, I can't say, "Sorry, I have all the money I need this month, but there isn't any left for you."
If you take your story and extrapolate it, in a way it can make sense. If you change the time frame from "enough fish (money) for that day" to "enough fish (money) for that lifetime" then it makes sense. The fisherman fished until he had enough put away for his retirement. -
It does presuppose a steady supply of fish. Despite this, it has a rather Jesus-parable quality to it, but I'm not sure it makes for practical politics -
Antics - to apply it to today's standards - it simply means to cut back and prioritize.
What's more important? Working 80 hour weeks (or 2 and 3 plus jobs) to make money so you can have mass quantities in savings, a lot of toys, and the ability to hire people to do the things you no longer have time to do yourself (maids, nanny's, landscapers) - or spending time with your family, pursuing the hobbies in life that you love and enjoying the world around you?
Does anyone actually feel that owning the 5 bedroom McMansion with multiple high end cars, all the toys you can buy, and outsourcing all of their daily needs is worth it when they don't actually have time to enjoy the things they buy because they're too busy working to pay for them?
Is it worth missing your children's lives and the company of family and friends save for when you have a spare moment?
Is the mass accumulation of money even a productive activity? -
Is the mass accumulation of money even a productive activity?
Yes, and here are the reasons:
1) With money comes power, with excess comes the abillity to give, and if that abillity is used right, it can create a lot good in the world.
2) You can hire people to do more then you would ever, even if you held your entire schedule, be able to do yourself. Preferably, you would use this for others.
3) Some people take a lot of pride and meaning from that (discussed further up the page.) They have the right to.
4) Greater efficiency leads to less land, water, et cetera being used to produce the same yield. Europe used 4 times as much farmland as today to prdouce food for a hundredth as many people during the Middle Ages. America, in the 1800's, used several times as much farmland to feed about 70 million and some food import natinos.
5) Savings can serve people well when tragedy strikes. Let's say a red tide comes in and wipes out all those fish. If the fisherman had a bank account, he could support himself and possibly others through the hardship.
Does anyone actually feel that owning the 5 bedroom McMansion with multiple high end cars, all the toys you can buy, and outsourcing all of their daily needs is worth it when they don't actually have time to enjoy the things they buy because they're too busy working to pay for them?
Indeed, if they use their money that way, they have truly missed the point. Money should be used for security, giving, hospitality, not odd luxuries. Still, everyone has the right to be an idiot. -
@Anok...I getcha! I just want enough money so that I don't have to worry about my kids' college and bills and, well you get the point.
@jeremy..."Still, everyone has the right to be an idiot."
Yep, and a few bloggers on here keep proving it. But they will remain nameless, I wouldn't want to mark them, it might ruin them. -
1) With money comes power, with excess comes the abillity to give, and if that abillity is used right, it can create a lot good in the world.
It's a nice sentiment, but with power comes corruption. If this were a true statement, we would have an awful lot of wealthy people helping out those in need, and much fewer starving people in need all over the world.
However, we don't. The desire for money is the root of all evil.
2) You can hire people to do more then you would ever, even if you held your entire schedule, be able to do yourself. Preferably, you would use this for others.
Why do you need to hire others to do more than you ever would? Isn't it well enough that every does exactly what they need to do , no more no less? Isn't hiring other people to do you work for you a rather lazy attitude that leads to an unjustified sense of entitlement? I'll wash my own clothes, thank you.
3) Some people take a lot of pride and meaning from that (discussed further up the page.) They have the right to.
Yes, a lot of people take a lot of pride in being wealthy or accumulating money. Then again, a lot of people take pride in accumulating a lot of sex partners - that fact doesn't actually mean that it's a productive activity.
4) Greater efficiency leads to less land, water, et cetera being used to produce the same yield. Europe used 4 times as much farmland as today to prdouce food for a hundredth as many people during the Middle Ages. America, in the 1800's, used several times as much farmland to feed about 70 million and some food import natinos.
This actually has nothing to do with accumulating mass quantities of money. Cooperative farms can and do exist - every individual doesn't need their own farm, and it misses the point entirely.
Take only what you need so you can spend your life enjoying it rather than toiling away to accumulate much so you can enjoy it later.
5) Savings can serve people well when tragedy strikes. Let's say a red tide comes in and wipes out all those fish. If the fisherman had a bank account, he could support himself and possibly others through the hardship.
Catastrophes often also wipe out bank accounts, investments (homes) and food supplies from the entire area. (And even if it was just a red tide, the entire area's food supply would be affected, so no matter how much money you had - it's not going to matter unless you fly them all elsewhere). That's why it's called a catastrophe.
Money isn't needed - food, water, and medical supplies are. In a capitalistic society are the basic necessities for life held over the head's of the suffering for money.
Although I totally agree with you on the idiots bit -
"It's a nice sentiment, but with power comes corruption. If this were a true statement, we would have an awful lot of wealthy people helping out those in need, and much fewer starving people in need all over the world."
Bill & Melinda Gates would be very surprised by your sentiments.
"However, we don't. The desire for money is the root of all evil."
No. All violence based on anger, sexual immorality, sexual jealousy, xenophobia, hatred of difference, and self-righteousness have nothing to do with money. The desire to be elite is not caused by money but is often enabled by it, here being a leaf rather then a root. Pride can be hurt by taking money, but itself is the root.
"Yes, a lot of people take a lot of pride in being wealthy or accumulating money. Then again, a lot of people take pride in accumulating a lot of sex partners - that fact doesn't actually mean that it's a productive activity."
"Man does not live on bread alone." -Christ. That statement can be taken several ways, and the life that comes from Christ is the only eternal life, but people have the God given choice to pursue other kinds as well, and you can't say it's not productive in terms of giving them meaning.
"This actually has nothing to do with accumulating mass quantities of money. Cooperative farms can and do exist - every individual doesn't need their own farm, and it misses the point entirely."
Cooperative farms (corporate = cooperative by the way) work almost exactly like a business the majority of the time, and in the South especially were used to work people, usually black people, to exhaustion for barely what they needed to live. Owning your farm guarantees that big man, or big mob, can't gang up on you.
A market system with money as the means of exchange encourages higher levels of productivity by punishing failing businesses and creating adequate exchange for market forces to carry quickly.
"Take only what you need so you can spend your life enjoying it rather than toiling away to accumulate much so you can enjoy it later."
Yeah, my sentiment is option C. Build up stores of wealth for the security of you and your family, AND give freely from them for those in need, but be careful how you do it. "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves" as the Lord would say.
"Catastrophes often also wipe out bank accounts, investments (homes) and food supplies from the entire area. (And even if it was just a red tide, the entire area's food supply would be affected, so no matter how much money you had - it's not going to matter unless you fly them all elsewhere). That's why it's called a catastrophe."
Less likely (though still possible) by a considerable amount if you included disaster preparation in your investments. Also, you can fly in food instead of people out.
-
-
I like the tale. Of course, the problem is that we live in a cash economy, so we have no choice but to try to save for a rainy day. But it does make one contemplate what was lost. Of course, this would idealize a past where life was pretty harsh for a lot of people, but "progress" came with some real trade-offs.
If you can put up with his sometimes verbose language, Anok, you might enjoy a book of essays by historian E. P. Thompson called Customs in Common.-
I see a huge difference between saving for a rainy day - be it in food stuffs or money - and working ourselves to death for the sake of having yet more money.
-
-
Only an anarchist would try to find the reality basis in a story that has no basis in reality.
"There are indigenous tribes and cultures that live outside of this ideology where the villagers work maybe three hours a day to get everything they need. Food, shelter, supplies etc. The rest of their days are spent in leisure, enjoying their children, their lives, their homes/village. They have no crime, no stress related health problems, long life spans (into their 100's - some of the longest living people in the world are from remote villages who do not have this concept of work/money/ratrace)."
As always.. Proof, anything?
Lets see the research that shows life expectancies in the 100's. YOu may be referring to the ones that look like they are 100, but normally they are in their 40's.
Let's see the "no crime" tribes.
OR do you mean that they have no laws and thus by definition no crime. Don't know about you, but it was commonly known when i read anthropology that the chief of a tribe was the prevailing "court" and that the most severe punishment was often death or exclusion. Which would indicate that there is a sense of right and wrong, which would be equivalent to law.
Find me a tribe that works 3 hours a day, and i'll show you a tribe that isn't surviving at all..
So again, proof, anything other than your romantic notion of the anarchistic society where everyone does what they want and no one is wanting for anything.
Anything, pretty please with reality on top.-
Seeing as this was a more philosophically minded post, not a matter of practical policy proposals, I don't see why even you would have the need to be so mean spirited.
-
what part of that would you consider mean spirited? Anok posted claims of fact that proves we "missed the poin"... im just asking for proof of those claims..
Anok has a tendency to produce the most fantastic stories with a "on faith only" level of proof. Just checking if this is another one of those stories. -
I take it you don't watch Discovery, PBS, or the History channel at all, do you? They have specials on this all the time
In fact, I believe it was Jim Lehrer's show that showcased the worlds longest living humans - which were a small (non developed) village in South America.
I suppose you're just asking, not because you actually don't believe that indigenous tribes and isolated non developed villages have lower crime rates, better health overall, and don't have to slave to make ends meet - but rather because it's disconcerting to hear someone state that everything you do and love is a futile exercise and otherwise a waste of valuable time.
But since you don't like to research anything for yourself:
health.howstuffworks.com/life-expectancy.htm
Babies born in the United States in 2005 are expected to live an average of 77.9 years, according to a 2007 study by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. That's an increase of more than 30 years since 1900, when Americans were expected to live just 47.3 years [source: Medline Plus]. While the increase is impressive, America is not at the top of the list for life expectancy. Actually, the United States ranks behind 41 other countries.
Residents of Okinawa, a Japanese island, have long been endowed with high life expectancies. In 2002, there were 34.7 people 100 years or older per 100,000 residents, the highest life expectancy of any area in the world [source: USA Today]. People so envy Okinawans' vitality that doctors created a popular diet based on theirs to help others try to live longer. Still, while Okinawa may feature the highest population of centenarians -- people who are 100 years of age or older -- Japan is ranked second in life expectancy with an average of 82.
So to whom does the honor of first place go? It's a country you may never have heard of. The residents of Andorra, a tiny mountain nation in the Pyrenees between France and Spain, are expected to live to the ripe old age of 83.5. But why are Andorrans expected to live so much longer than anyone else? And how can you calculate something as unpredictable as how long someone will live?
I can't find the special where the villagers were interviewed - but there is also a place in Ecuador called "The valley of Longevity".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilcabamba,_Ecuador
Located in a historical and scenic valley, it is a common destination for tourists, in part because it is widely believed that its inhabitants grow to a very old age. Locals assert that it is not uncommon to see a person reach 100 years of age and it is claimed that many have gotten to 120, even up to 135, which would make it an area with the oldest inhabitants in the world. It is often called the Valley of Longevity.
The reasons for this claimed longevity are not very clear. French studies have shown that the diet and lifestyle of the inhabitants may be a factor. Some claim that the inhabitants have a tendency to exaggerate their age, and this is difficult to verify because of the lack of a proper birth certificates. Medical researchers have confirmed that the retinas of 100 year-old residents are often comparable with those of 45 year-old city-dwellers. [1]
Indigenous tribes:
Most indigenous tribes do not have violent crime within their lands and tribes, however they do experience a high level of violence from westernized outsiders.
redapes.org/news-updates/cnn-indigenous-tribes-fight-to-survive/
www.publicagenda.org/blogs/canada-apologizes-past-mistreatment-indigenous-t...
www1.american.edu/TED/russoil.htm
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm
Interesting note about that one - it mentions how indigenous tribes are at risk from outsiders because of the introduction of diseases they don't have. SO unlike us, they don't experience a wide array of infections, viruses, and bacterial disease.
Disease is also a risk, as members of tribal groups that have been contacted in the past have died of illnesses that they have no defence against, ranging from chicken pox to the common cold.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/restorative-justice/perspectives/indige...
In many contemporary tribal communities, dual justice systems exist. One is based on what can be called an American paradigm of justice, and the other is based on what can be called an indigenous paradigm.
The indigenous justice paradigm is based on a holistic philosophy and the worldview of the aboriginal inhabitants of North America. These systems are guided by the unwritten customary laws, traditions, and practices that are learned primarily by example and through the oral teachings of tribal elders.[3] The holistic philosophy is a circle of justice that connects everyone involved with a problem or conflict on a continuum, with everyone focused on the same center. The center of the circle represents the underlying issues that need to be resolved to attain peace and harmony for the individuals and the community. The continuum represents the entire process, from disclosure of problems, to discussion and resolution, to making amends and restoring relationships. The methods used are based on concepts of restorative and reparative justice and the principles of healing and living in harmony with all beings and with nature.[4]
Restorative principles refer to the mending process for renewal of damaged personal and communal relationships. The victim is the focal point, and the goal is to heal and renew the victim's physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual well-being. It also involves deliberate acts by the offender to regain dignity and trust, and to return to a healthy physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual state. These are necessary for the offender and victim to save face and to restore personal and communal harmony.
This is a list of many but not all indigenous tribes in the world today - feel free to explore on your own.
knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Indigenous_people/
Now that you understand what we're talking about - and have hopefully widened your horizons beyond the next payout - how about you address what the fables talk about, and how it applies to the human condition, and modern day concept of money?
or is it just too painful for you to address it? -
Some people use only themselves and their own experiences as a measuring stick for estimating the limits of human possibility.
-
This is true, Mark.
-
mark lecturing csi about being mean spirited! HA! Thanks mark, for my laugh for the day.
-
Absolutely ZERO there to support your claim on Longer life among primitives.
Fact, Primitive tribes see about the same life expectancy as western countries did when lifestyles matched it.
Of COURSE isolated tribes are at risk for bactreia that they haven't seen before. But did you know that explorers often get sick from strains that they've never seen either? It's a two way street. the difference being Antibiotics and Anti-Virals cut the death rate down among the visitors as opposed to the Tribes.
FYI, Okinawans are farmers, and fishermen, and they are part of the Japanese national economy. They don't work for the day, they work for a living.
But lets return to the "Fisherman"
Why should he have 10 boats? Well ask yourself how long he'll last if his only boat sinks, and he has nothing put away for buying a new one? Or even more, insurance.
Risk mitigation requires you to not bet everything on a string of ultimate problems. His health, his boat, the weather, the water,
If he was really smart, he'd have boats, farmland, and preferably some other income bringers that he can live with.
The "only work for the day" crowd are the ones that got foreclosed on this year... just for starters. -
Actually there is plenty there to support my claim - you just didn't read it.
You can lead a horse to water....
And no, the foreclosure crisis has nothing to do with the work for a day ideology - because the people who own(ed) those homes had full time jobs and then some - many had investments, too. The majority of middle class incomes are actually dual incomes - and yet they still couldn't pull it off.
So it just goes to show - that wasting your precious time trying to collect things and accumulate money doesn't in any way shape or form guarantee security.
But I do have to laugh at you naive observations of what a fisherman "should do". Tribes have lived for centuries longer than our style of society without such a business model as you suggest. And they still exist today - with only one boat. Oh, and no capital, no investing, no health care industry, no pharmaceuticals, no technology beyond simple machines. And yet they out live us, are generally healthier, have little to no crime or violence (save for the "civilized" societies trying to kill them off)
Hmmm....I wonder why....
(Oh, and Okinawa farmers and small villages are NOT part of a capitalistic economic structure like you and I live in - they are not Big Agriculture - they farm for themselves - they are the fisherman!)
-
-
There was a house down the street from where we lived a few years ago - a massive, huge McMansion of sorts with all the trimmings. it wasn't just right on the water, but it also had a pond AND a pool. It was huge, landscaped to the hilt, and every bell and whistle imaginable was on/around this house- including the high end suburban assault vehicles in matching his and her's.
They must have had some hell of a job to be able to afford all of that!
But do you know what was missing from the house? people. Sure there were the people who worked to maintain the property - outsourced companies, pool cleaners, and landscapers. But the people who live din the house were always missing in action.
I never once (not in all these years) have I seen them outside en joying their pool, pond, or waterfront home. I've never seen them walk through their gardens, or mow their own lawn. Never saw the kids playing outside, in the yard, or interacting in any way shape or form.
Why did they spend a $500k + for a place to sleep, shower and eat?
It's insanity!-
"Why did they spend a $500k + for a place to sleep, shower and eat?"
Because it was such a good investment -
*snicker*
-
How about because they wanted it?
-
I understand fully that people want status symbols to show the world how rich they are (or at least the perception of wealth).
But why bother? They don't use it!
The motto in my family has always been - "If you can't afford to use it, you can't afford to have it."
And they can't afford to use it, because in order to have it, they have to spend all of their time earning enough income to pay for it - so in reality, they can't afford to have it. -
Really?
Funny, Donald Trump has properties all over the country. You should see A1A in West Palm, it's packed with houses that stand empty a lot of the time.
Trump can afford to spend as much time in them as he wants to. If anyone has enough money to retire he would be the one.
See the difference between most people who have made themselves wealthy is that they like what they do. Or actually love it. They don't live for retirement like most workers do.
The ones that get a job that they either tolerate, or can't stand but need rarely work hard enough at it to get anywhere.
And the ones that have nothing, always bi-ch about how stupid the ones that have a lot are, which is hillarious all things considered.
I was in a real showpiece house the other day, the thing has 5 living rooms. Makes very little practical use to me, but hey, if that is what they want, good for them that they have gotten that far.
It's nice when you have enough to not having to think "practical" all the time. -
This coming from you LOL.
Donald trump is one of about .5% of Americans with that kind of money. Whether he got it working hard, or he loves his job is a moot point. He's taking up space and land that he chooses to use maybe once a year - when there are people all over the world who could use that space to become self sufficient. He uses that money "because he wants to" - when he could afford to create millions of jobs for people. But he doesn't.
Greed is never good, and it does no good. -
Ah, that old chestnut.
Well, it's never good to be greedy, so i think you should send your son to the army as soon as possible. We need soldiers..
Or maybe you and he should decide over yourselves and your belongings.
What Trump does with his money is his business, he is already creating thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs. I'd say hes doing a hell of a lot more than you are. -
Actually, if you look at what I do and what he does in terms of proportionate to our incomes - I do proportionately more, as I do as much as humanly possible but have very little to actually give.
The wealthy may do more with their big bank accounts numbers wise, but the vast majority of people who give everything they have and then some when they barely have enough for themselves are inherently more giving.
I doubt any of the wealthy would give up their last dollar, smoke, or sandwich to someone who is in more need than they are. If that's how they were, they wouldn't be wealthy - as they would have given all of their worldly possessions away a long time ago, and never bothered to accumulate it in the first place.
-
-
The "strict constructionists" among our founding fathers (Jeffersonians) believed that the accumulation of wealth should be limited (albeit by death and inheritance laws) in order to maintain the circulation of capital.
-
We later found out, in the 1920's and again more obviously in the 1970's and early 80's, that too much capital circulating can be dangerous.
-
except that this was a "natural" circulation, rather than an inflationary/speculative circulation. Jeffersonians were for "hard maney" and had little love for "stock-jobbers"
-
But if it's natural for the money to accumulate then who says it should flow? Besides, money lent to expand production creates more for the money to buy, and money accumulated in bank accounts is often used this way.
-
Monetary inflation in that manner is not actually money. It's numbers on a page - and the market that controls it amounts to a gambling addiction.
I think the founding fathers were more right than they realized. -
But they weren't in agreement Anok. This is the view of only Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians (Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin) loved the idea of a cash inflationary economy.
-
Well I never said "all"
However I always have to wonder if what they (Hamiltonians) wanted is what we actually have, and what they would say about how we function today. I may be guessing here, but me thinks they wouldn't be impressed. -
"Well I never said "all" "
The Hamiltonians were just as numerous as the Jeffersonians.
However, you are right that it would not be exactly what they or anybody else would've wanted. As always, democracy is full of compromise. They would be especially embarrassed by how minor of a party the libertarians now are. (In their day, libertarians were the majority.) -
"gambling addiction"
Isn't that funny, kinda like poker, People who don't understand it, are determined that it's gambling. But can't for the life of them explain that if it's gambling, how come the same group of people are always ending up at the finals table.
It's only gambling if you don't understand it. Or choose to treat it as such. For the rest it's calculated risk based on known facts. -
Erik, I come a from a casino family - we owned our own - do not, I repeat do not even try to tell me what gambling is and isn't or how it works. You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Yes of course, BUt no proof. Just another one of Anoks,
"I know everything but you don't have a clue" unfounded, unsubstantiated, and untrue statements.
Funny how You, your family, or your extended network always has something that you can refrence as making you an expert. Of course always wihtout proof. -
You know nothing about gambling (other than how to watch competitive poker on TV) - and I dare you to challenge me on any of it.
I was running blackjack tables and roulette wheels at the age of ten. And I could successfully count my cards by 15. -
I love roulette. How in the heck do I win on it?
-
If you're any good at mathematical patterns you may be able to establish a pattern of numbers, using odds and probability to help determine where the ball is *likely* to end up.
But you'd do better to split your bets among several spots on the board, in small doses. ("covering the board" so to speak).
The BEST way to make sure you don't lose your shirt at any casino is to follow this very simple rule:
Only bet what you brought in (and are willing to lose), never bet your winnings.
Casinos make their money by gamblers "reinvesting" their winnings into the game in hopes that larger bets will net larger payouts. What it does is keep the cash flow in the casino's hands, because eventually it's all taken back through the house winning.
For example:
You show up with $50 to play with. You bet $50, you lose $50. You're night is over.
You bet $50, you win ten. You take the $10, put it in your pocket, and bet $50 again. You lose the $50. You go home with $10 in your pocket, meaning you only lost $40 of what you were willing to lose that night.
You bet $50, you win BIG - you cash out and leave immediately - or continue to bet your $50 until you lose it. Once you lose it, you go home.
That's a sure fire way to gamble, and actually enjoy it. -
That is the process Mrs. anticsrocks and I use when we go to the casions. She loves the slots and I do too, but the roulette wheel keeps calling me...
Maybe I have watched too many spy movies. -
Roulette is fun, more so than craps I think. There's something about the way it sounds that makes it a lot of fun (not that you can hear it in a casino, really).
You can definitely cover your bets and win a little, if you split things up between colors and other options. You're just not going to win a lot that way. Which, if you're going to have fun, isn't the point, anyway -
Roulette I have played. Craps, I cannot figure out.
-
-
I'm actually mystified that this thread should have turned into an argument. Don't most cultures and religions have stories about getting one's priorities straight, priorities that have nothing to do with amassing wealth for wealth's sake? Even if you disagree with them personally, can't you think of any such stories fundamental to the tradition in which you grew up?
-
Of course it turned into an argument! The very basis of the notion - which you are correct has echoed through every country, city, village and family in various forms for centuries - challenges the very ideology of capitalism at it's very core.
It's a very simple yet effective disarming of the idea, and thus, many people's very identities. It's a bit like talking about religion, only in this case the religion is capitalism.
I'm certainly not surprised by the arguments presented whatsoever. -
But can't people live with the contradictions of these ideals and the reality of living in a capitalist system such as ours? You certainly seem to get along with them, as is evidenced by your explanations of why the government needs to help capitalism (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/corporate-executive-pay). I thought most people had to live with this kind of tension between their ideals and the everyday business of living. If you're Christian, for example, consider the messages there compared with what one has to do to earn a living. It doesn't make the people schizophrenic or even necessarily hypocritical. That's just life: a mass of paradoxes.
-
Yep. It's one of those things - you have to live your life on a personal level as close to your ideologies as best you can, and make do with the mess that's around you as best you can.
But to too many people, challenging the status quo construes a personal attack on their soul or something. *shrug* -
Because of the nature of this board? Or in general too? Might depend on the person.
-
True to form, Erik - you show your ignorance.
Fables are not "cute stories" and never have been. They are the oral tradition of teaching societal mores and proper behaviors to tribe/village members. All those fairy tales? They all have extremely prudent meanings and lessons. They also served as a vent for the social frustrations with royalty and the inheritance of property when a step parent becomes involved (in the later stories, not the tribal stories - anything with an evil step parent in it).
But, of course, anything that challenges you're outlook on life must be silly, and made up. *rolls eyes*
-
-
I've read the whole thread.
There are only two truths here that are worth contemplating:
1. We all die, no matter how much wealth we have accumulated.
2. As Don Henley says: "You don't see no hearses with luggage racks."
The missing piece to the whole argument is the answer to the question: Why are we here? If we are here to accumulate vast quantities of wealth, then the McMansion is definitely the way to go. If, however, we are here to be as selfless as possible and help as many other people as possible, then the McMansion looks a bit foolish.
There isn't anything wrong with saving for a rainy day. There is everything wrong with hoarding for a rainy day. If you have $1 million, do you really need $20 million?
One other thing:
"With money comes power, with excess comes the abillity to give, and if that abillity is used right, it can create a lot good in the world."
Since this thread started on a philosophical note: Money has no power, other than that which others perceive it to have. A million dollars has no power over me unless I want a million dollars or the things a million dollars can buy. You don't need money to have the ability to give. Your time is more valuable than all the money in the world, because you only have a limited amount of it before you die. I don't need money to have the ability to give of my time, or my knowledge, or my physical abilities. I only need the will to do so. Money has no intrinsic abilities or value. It's use cannot create good or evil. Good or evil are created by the people who use the money. It's value is created by the people who demand more money. But the reality is that money is only a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. It has its time and place for use, but it is highly overrated in the big scheme of things.-
"There isn't anything wrong with saving for a rainy day. There is everything wrong with hoarding for a rainy day. If you have $1 million, do you really need $20 million?"
I agree with most of what you said, except that. If you are only worrying about yourself, then one million would probably be enough. However if you goal is to start a foundation that helps others, or even to have enough to pay for college tuition for your progeny, then one mil won't cut it.
But more to the point, I now have a strong urge to go to Long John Silvers... -
Money has no power, other than that which others perceive it to have. A million dollars has no power over me unless I want a million dollars or the things a million dollars can buy.
Argh! SOrry for the tags problem.
Antics, I think he was talking about personal hoarding as opposed to raising money for a foundation or charity whose only purpose is to give that money away.
-
-
Had 2 in college. Graduated 1. Got 1 left. Didn't need a million.
Don't need a foundation to help others. I help them one at a time. I have a rule that I never turn down anyone who comes to me with a reasonable request for help. You would be surprised how few people ask for money.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." --Lao Tzu
Come to think of it, Long John Silvers does sound kind of good...
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
