4 ms·

> Life contains a series of problems that need to be solved. And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is ri

> Life contains a series of problems that need to be solved. And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is rich. As in, seeking food, seeking shelter, seeking transportation, clothing, future security... > If you solve them adequately, then you are happy and fulfilled. That's not how my life works. My daughter just had heart surgery. It cost over $50,000. My cut of that was about $2,000. It saved her life. You still think I'd rather be POOR today? > If you don't solve them at all, then you are unhappy. In my experience, there are two broad types of people - those who imagine how happy they'll be after they accomplish their list of tasks (you), and those who are generally happy and find a way to put joy into the things they're doing (me). Since I'm generally happy, the gravy for me is getting to experience more out of this life and help other people. > How to earn the love of your family, friends, and community. I don't believe I do "earn the love of my family, friends." I think my family and friends love me unconditionally. > How to retain a sense of control over your destiny. We're talking about POOR today. ACTUALLY POOR. And ACTUALLY POOR people do not have nearly as much control over their destiny as you're painting. > Fly a Mig? Christ man, talk about missing the point. I specifically asked you to name TWO things a poor person can actually do today, that a rich person couldn't do 20 years ago. You're full of criticism for my point of view, but I've given you a terribly simple challenge, and you have not risen to it. If you want me to understand your point, then try STATING your point (via examples), rather than criticizing mine. And to defend myself, I find that in debate it's best to try to understand the most charitable rendition of the other person's argument. You're breezing right past several of my points: "Influence politics. Invest in corporations, like SOLAR power, WIND power, NUCLEAR power. Fund start-ups. Help stabilize and transform former Soviet Block countries." Those are all, in how I view them, about helping people. Most of my other ones were based on the fact that a rich person isn't struggling to survive, and is instead seeking to squeeze as much out of this life as possible. Carpe diem. And evidence points to helping people, and having unique experiences, as being far more enjoyable than merely having possessions. So, if I picture myself as rich 20 years ago, I come up with things (for that list) that a poor person could not do today, but that would make me happy. If you want to attempt to convince me, then why don't you try to list concrete examples of things a poor person could do today, that a rich person 20 years ago could not do. Since that's the actual topic at hand. And fine, let's take the most charitable form of your argument - Having The Internet Is Awesome. Fine. 2 billion people have access to the Internet. That means roughly 5 billion people do not. Perhaps the agreement that you and I can make is that it would suck to be poor, among those 5 billion people today.

vinceguidry 11y ago
Not sure why I'm continuing this discussion. You seem to be too invested in having your own view of what I was saying instead of discussing what I was actually trying to say, despite any number of clarifications. I'll try one more time then give it up. > And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is rich. As in, seeking food, seeking shelter, seeking transportation, clothing, future security... Most people think these things are granted by personal wealth. Students of history and geopolitics know better. The US is a rich country with political and economic innovations allow for a kind of security people in other countries only dream of. No amount of personal wealth can hedge against political upheaval, hell, wealth makes you a target more often than not. Personal wealth gets you the ability to fly a Mig. National wealth is having enough ambient wealth in every single community so that starvation is really rare. I was just reading an article where the author's grandma's grandma had gotten thrown out onto the street by their landlord in the middle of the winter. The whole block banded together and chipped in a coin out of their own meagre lives so they could rent that room for one more month. Had that happened in any other country, they would have frozen to death. That's national wealth, that's what is really helping the poor. In other countries, you have to have personal wealth. Our country has only gotten richer and richer in the last thirty years. Again, practically invisible to anyone not specifically looking for it, it's hard to see the forest for the trees. But it's there, and I'm telling you, if it were me, I'd rather lose everything and become homeless today, than to step into a time machine with a barrel full of time-appropriate cash. I'm not making that decision for everybody. Just me. Sure, it would suck for awhile to claw myself out of poverty. But over the long run, I believe I'd be better off. Barrels of cash aren't all that hard to come by. Massive national wealth isn't, and it's the national wealth that I'm basing my conviction on, along with my own understanding of my abilities. > That's not how my life works. My daughter just had heart surgery. It cost over $50,000. My cut of that was about $2,000. It saved her life. You still think I'd rather be POOR today? I don't want to dissect this too much because it's your daughter and I want to be respectful. But my point is that national wealth created both the option to have heart surgery and the ability to have it relatively cheaply. We can dive into that all day long if you like. These days the not-so-well-off crowdfund these kinds of major life events, it's just another way of getting wealth to where it's needed, same as passing around the hat allowed the aforementioned author's great great grandmother not freeze. Of course, you have to have insurance to get the option for heart surgery, maybe, plenty of children's charities out there, this is an open problem that the nation is trying to solve. To cut you off, of course the not-so-well-off isn't the ACTUALLY POOR. (you really seem to have a complex over this, as if I don't know the difference or something) But again, the only thing that really solves the poor's problems is national wealth. There's not enough liquid wealth to spread around to stop poverty. > I think my family and friends love me unconditionally. Hehehe, good thing you live in a country where the things that can seriously test that belief in unconditionality generally don't happen. Totalitarian states insert politics into families specifically to keep these sorts of bonds from giving communities the power to resist the state. In case you missed my point, it's that just about everything you think of as 'you', your life, your wealth, your family, your very mind, is a product of the country you live in. And it's not a sharp division between ACTUALLY POOR and whatever the opposite of that is, it's an immensely varied gradation and ecosystem of abilities, disabilities, the services that make those disabilities less onerous, the efforts to spread information about those services, government programs, communities, the well-meaning and charitable, and the options people have available to pull themselves out of poverty. There is a ton of attention being paid to the actual problems both poor people and ACTUALLY POOR people are having, and a lot of resources devoted to promising options. > We're talking about POOR today. ACTUALLY POOR. And ACTUALLY POOR people do not have nearly as much control over their destiny as you're painting. You are talking about that. I made an assertion concerning my own convictions that you are taking out of context. Now you are asking me to substantiate my own convictions using your weird funny logic. Nothing about being poor keeps you from helping people. Most of those volunteering in soup kitchens are closer to the people they're serving than they are to you. And the things rich people try to do to help the less well-off often boil down to ego gratification and do no real good. > If you want to attempt to convince me, then why don't you try to list concrete examples of things a poor person could do today, that a rich person 20 years ago could not do. Since that's the actual topic at hand. I can't even begin to try to convince you because the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly.

vinceguidry 11y ago

Not sure why I'm continuing this discussion. You seem to be too invested in having your own view of what I was saying instead of discussing what I was actually trying to say, despite any number of clarifications. I'll try one more time then give it up. > And MOST of the problems that MOST people face, have already been solved by the time someone is rich. As in, seeking food, seeking shelter, seeking transportation, clothing, future security... Most people think these things are granted by personal wealth. Students of history and geopolitics know better. The US is a rich country with political and economic innovations allow for a kind of security people in other countries only dream of. No amount of personal wealth can hedge against political upheaval, hell, wealth makes you a target more often than not. Personal wealth gets you the ability to fly a Mig. National wealth is having enough ambient wealth in every single community so that starvation is really rare. I was just reading an article where the author's grandma's grandma had gotten thrown out onto the street by their landlord in the middle of the winter. The whole block banded together and chipped in a coin out of their own meagre lives so they could rent that room for one more month. Had that happened in any other country, they would have frozen to death. That's national wealth, that's what is really helping the poor. In other countries, you have to have personal wealth. Our country has only gotten richer and richer in the last thirty years. Again, practically invisible to anyone not specifically looking for it, it's hard to see the forest for the trees. But it's there, and I'm telling you, if it were me, I'd rather lose everything and become homeless today, than to step into a time machine with a barrel full of time-appropriate cash. I'm not making that decision for everybody. Just me. Sure, it would suck for awhile to claw myself out of poverty. But over the long run, I believe I'd be better off. Barrels of cash aren't all that hard to come by. Massive national wealth isn't, and it's the national wealth that I'm basing my conviction on, along with my own understanding of my abilities. > That's not how my life works. My daughter just had heart surgery. It cost over $50,000. My cut of that was about $2,000. It saved her life. You still think I'd rather be POOR today? I don't want to dissect this too much because it's your daughter and I want to be respectful. But my point is that national wealth created both the option to have heart surgery and the ability to have it relatively cheaply. We can dive into that all day long if you like. These days the not-so-well-off crowdfund these kinds of major life events, it's just another way of getting wealth to where it's needed, same as passing around the hat allowed the aforementioned author's great great grandmother not freeze. Of course, you have to have insurance to get the option for heart surgery, maybe, plenty of children's charities out there, this is an open problem that the nation is trying to solve. To cut you off, of course the not-so-well-off isn't the ACTUALLY POOR. (you really seem to have a complex over this, as if I don't know the difference or something) But again, the only thing that really solves the poor's problems is national wealth. There's not enough liquid wealth to spread around to stop poverty. > I think my family and friends love me unconditionally. Hehehe, good thing you live in a country where the things that can seriously test that belief in unconditionality generally don't happen. Totalitarian states insert politics into families specifically to keep these sorts of bonds from giving communities the power to resist the state. In case you missed my point, it's that just about everything you think of as 'you', your life, your wealth, your family, your very mind, is a product of the country you live in. And it's not a sharp division between ACTUALLY POOR and whatever the opposite of that is, it's an immensely varied gradation and ecosystem of abilities, disabilities, the services that make those disabilities less onerous, the efforts to spread information about those services, government programs, communities, the well-meaning and charitable, and the options people have available to pull themselves out of poverty. There is a ton of attention being paid to the actual problems both poor people and ACTUALLY POOR people are having, and a lot of resources devoted to promising options. > We're talking about POOR today. ACTUALLY POOR. And ACTUALLY POOR people do not have nearly as much control over their destiny as you're painting. You are talking about that. I made an assertion concerning my own convictions that you are taking out of context. Now you are asking me to substantiate my own convictions using your weird funny logic. Nothing about being poor keeps you from helping people. Most of those volunteering in soup kitchens are closer to the people they're serving than they are to you. And the things rich people try to do to help the less well-off often boil down to ego gratification and do no real good. > If you want to attempt to convince me, then why don't you try to list concrete examples of things a poor person could do today, that a rich person 20 years ago could not do. Since that's the actual topic at hand. I can't even begin to try to convince you because the very way you think about wealth is utterly silly.