Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: It's not envy but disgust

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 28, 2012, 4 p.m. EST by impalero (49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I hear some say that those that go after those on Wall Street are just envious of their wealth.

Nothing could be further from the truth, otherwise, you would see these same people going after Hollywood stars or basketball players, small business owners etc.

To those that say it is about envy, then those against Hitler and the concentration camps were just envious that they were not there also gassing people. Right? Wrong!

People need to see the different between disgust and envy. It is disgusting when you rig the market in your favor to expense of everyone else when you buy politicians, or go from being the head of a Mega National Corporation or Wall Street Bank and become a politician to rig the rules in you and your cronies favor.

Take Ray Dalio for example:



When I read the article above, I feel disgust and gladly wait for the day when this maggots day is done and he is burning in hell along with Hitler. Him and his chums are the kind we don't need in America where they prey on the hard working in order to make their money. He siphons money off of retirement accounts. Teacher Accounts to be exact which is probably lamblasts as well.

There is a difference between being successful via ethical avenues versus winner take all and rape as many as you can along the way no matter the harm it causes to others.

I suppose there are those that think that getting wealthy however you do it defines success, no matter what the consequences or harm it causes to others.

In that light, I suppose the same people would look at Bank Robberies where the robbers got away with millions as successful people as well.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

I agree. It has nothing to do with envy. It is about fairness. I don't care how rich someone becomes as long as everyone has enough.


[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

I agree with you that everyone should have enough. But on the other side, I refuse to pay for the welfare of lazy asses. I would much rather donate all my salary to a charity in Africa than let it be wasted on people who are too lazy to show up daily for work.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

Fair enough. I think I told this to slammers, forgive me if it was you. I once had it beaten into me in a labor economics class by a professor that there would always be shirkers and malingerers. A very very small percentage, but those people always exist in every society. Certainly, the half of all Americans who are earning less than $26,000 per year are not all lazy. No way. You know that. And, these hard working Americans need to make enough money to live decent lives. (In addition, and really, we can put this part of the argument aside because I know you'll hate hearing this, a society has a responsibility to the unemployable, too, largely because it is often due to mental illness or physical disability.)

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

If it is mental illness or physical disability then we should support them. But not the lazy ones.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23769) 12 years ago

I think I'm going to faint. I agree with you.

How many of the working poor do you think are lazy? I'm really curious. I wish they had a statistic for that. Because, these are the people I am most concerned with. If they work, they should make enough money from their employer to need no additional help.


[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

I'm with you buddy!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Thanks for pointing that out. What I feel isn't envy, it's pity, and a vague feeling of nausia.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

The article is gone but I ran a search and located this, from Dalio. I just started reading it. http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf

[-] 1 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

I checked out your link and noticed its about "Principles" by Ray himself. I also noticed the copyright date as 2011, which was well after the first article I posted dated May 2010.

This looks like damage control to me.

I judge people on their actions and not what they say since many people are liars these days.

Kind of like Obama saying that he would curtail corruption in the Government and on Wall Street, and has gone totally the opposite direction.

Now that Obama's "reelection" is coming up, the charlatan is up to his same old tricks spouting the same lies, while doing the total opposite in office.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

Interesting The link I included in the opening post was valid less than an hour ago, and is now defunct. No matter, there is still a cached copy on google.


Also, for an excerpt :

So now we know why hedge fund managers are raking in record pay (last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned on average about $1 billion each), while hundreds of thousands of America’s teachers are getting fired all across the country: Nature hates teachers and other do-gooders. Sure, Dalio’s hedge fund is flush thanks in no small part to all the teachers retirement funds that Bridgewater managed to tap—without those teachers pooling their money together, he’d have a lot less to plunder, and society would never even know what a great person he is.

To which Dalio would answer, “Be a hyena. Attack the wildebeest.”

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

"You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand." woodrow wilson

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 12 years ago

Well thats just like, your opinion man.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

thats a quote.. woodrow wilson.. by your post ,, i cant tell if you intelligent enough to be aware of who that is.

[-] 1 points by Apercentage (81) 12 years ago

I'm well aware of who Woodrow Wilson is, I was just replying with a funny quote from The movie, The BIg Lebowski. I'm also intelligent enough to know the proper use, and number of periods in an elipses (its three ...). Its best not to criticize someone when your criticism lacks in syntax, proper grammar, and the use of your shift key. But anyways...

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone's opinion on what the purpose of life is, is just that, an opinion. So it differs greatly. And whether you want to enrich the world like President Wilson, or race to the top, thats up to you, and whatever you happen to decide, more power to ya.

But as far as this thread, I believe the disgust, really did at one point stem from envy. Also another point is that such disgust is aimed in the wrong direction for the most part. Should you be disgusted with the people presenting the bribes to the elected officials? Or the elected officials who accepted the bribes and pushed through shitty laws and decisions. Heck in their position I'd probably try to save my skin, and the skin of my company as well. So being disgusted with the politicians is a much better approach.

You can't begin to tell me a lot of the people who are so angry about the wall street execs, aren't envious of the fat stacks of cash. Who isn't trying to get make a buck these days. And its very obvious reading some of the threads on these message boards that that is in fact the case. For instance: when Tim Cook's, the CEO of Apple, compensation package came in totaling a whopping 365Million dollars, people here where outraged. A few people had good reasoning, but most acted envious, saying thats to much for one man, thats disgusting amount of wealth, he should spread it around and pay his fair share, government should regulate CEO payout, etc. Now keep in mind, Apple is actually a successful company, with no toxic assets, great returns for investors, and spends very little money lobbying in comparison with many other major companies, especially the ones at fault on wallst. But for the most part, OWS lumped Tim in with the rest of these crooked CEOs. So it couldn't be disgust at shady business practices, it had to at the most basic level, boil down to envy.

Also you can't really claim its not envy, when OWS has the slogan "The 99%", which divides by income level right away. (Whether it was intended that way or not, its how its turned out.)

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Have you thought of a hobby? Maybe golf? You have way too much "worry" time on your hands. Get a life.

[-] -1 points by jbob (74) 12 years ago

if its not envy, why do care what other people do with their money? mind your own business, and try your best to be the best you can be and this country would be a lot better.

[-] 3 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

I do care.

It is called empathy for other people and for the country as a whole.

As long as I am a citizen and live in this country, everything that goes on with my government is my business and I have made it a rule to speak out on forums, with friends, and close acquaintance's on the criminals running our government and those in bed with them.

If you have no connection to our government such as with the criminals on Wall Street or Crony Corporations, buying out politicians, or worst still, becoming a Wall Street politician to help out your cronies, then you need not worry.

The solution is simple if they don't like being in the light.

Get the heads of Wall Street Banks and Mega Corporations out of my government, and make it illegal for them to ever run for office.

Then get money out of politics and implement campaign finance reform.

It is irresponsible and parasitic when anyone is able to buy politicians in order to rig the market in their favor to the expense of the rest of American's.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

I have seen many guys here complaining about the wealth of hollywood starts or sportsmen too. So yes, you guys (may not you personally) are jealous. And please don't give me that ethical crap. You have no idea what we do. All you read are some sensationalized news and you make up your mind. More importantly, who are you to question others' ethics? Are you the most ethical guy on earth? Claiming the ethical moral ground is what thugs like Pastor Ted or fanatics do. As to what hedge fund people say, well you can't take a single person's quote to represent the whole industry. And if you still think we are arrogant, so be it. We are smart and we don't tolerate stupidity. If that's arrogance, so be it.

[-] 2 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

It does not matter in the long run.

You don't see the damage you do now, or perhaps you just don't care, but there will be no escaping the self review all go through after death will you have to account for your actions and see the effects it has had on others.

As far as I am concerned, financial terrorists like you that have no ethics will get what is coming to you in the hereafter.

Meanwhile, party on, drink up and enjoy it, because you won't be later on!

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

Ah, so you believe in life after death I see. Nice to know. I will take my chances with whichever god is there up there. The only self review I need to do is whether I am making money for my clients. As long as that graph is up, I am happy.

I like the term financial terrorist, macho. Thank you. And as far as I am concerned, people who cannot live with the consequences of their own actions and make stupid mistakes in life like going for a useless degree by taking a huge loan and then cant service it, are cowards and imbeciles.

And no I dont get much time to party unlike you hippies. I, and everyone here I know, work almost throughout the day while you guys complain if you have to work 60hrs a week.

[-] 2 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

I see lots of cliches, innuendo's and assumptions there.

I am not a leftist, nor a rightist, nor and independent.

I see through the Bull that is our political charade where Wall Street tends to fund whoever will give them favors and write up new laws for them to exploit.

Obama the Leftist team is full of Wall Street maggots, and looking at all past elections, the Big Wall Street Banks have been right there, funding both sides of the equation, because it matters not to them if it is a "Democrat or Republican"

I am not some "pot smoking hippie" that believes in peaceful resistance only either. Being former active military, I have no problem against violence for the sake of my country, which does not include the bought out traitors and their cronies in our government.

Furthermore, I am quite content where I am in life, but have empathy for the rest of the people in my country and believe in taking a stand when I see criminals running around doing as they please and destroying lives in the process.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

Why blame Wall St for funding candidates who would favor them? Every group, be it labor union, teachers union to the American Nazi party would do and does the same. Even the individual voter votes for his/her interest and would donate (however small the sum may be) to a candidate that does something that personally benefits them. So why expect altruism from Wall St or anyone else?

I respect our armed forces, and by extension I would like to thank you for guarding our country and providing us the peace of mind when we go to sleep at night. But unlike you I don't believe in violence or bullying, which is what this country has been doing all over the world through it's armed forces (with good reason in many cases. We need to protect our economic interests). Nevertheless, I have never liked bullies , like yourself. I did not like them as a kid and I don't like them any better now. So take your trash talk about violence somewhere else.

Speaking of empathy, I believe there is far more empathy is helping the poor than in putting a bullet through their eyes.

[-] 2 points by impalero (49) 12 years ago

It is irresponsible for anyone to be able to buy politicians because they are giving themselves an advantage over the rest of the country.

Our government should be representing us all equally, and that is not what is happening. There is a correlation between the success of the donors and the ones that win the office. All of Obama's donors have done quite well, as have all previous presidents.

Our government no longer represents the best interest of the people and it is not supposed to be this way.

I am for equality of voting power, and when money entered the equation, it gave a small minority a larger voice than the rest of us had.

You have me wrong on the wars we have been involved in as well.

I don't agree with the number of bases we have spread-ed throughout the world, nor the wars we have been involved in, because it has not been for the benefit of the citizens of this country. Mostly only for the Military Industrial Complex.

I was only stating there are some fights worth fighting for, and fighting for this country is worth it versus fighting for Israel or Saudi Arabia for example.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

I agree with almost everything you said on this.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

You set the standard for criticism, you must be perfect to engage in it. I know what you do, and you have rationalized it. So, what are you doing here? That is the non sequitor.

The verbal abuse of people you consider inferior to you is narcissism, clinically, and and cruelty, socially. If it were summer you could be pulling the wings off of flies. So, your choice, beat up a homeless person or log into OWS and condescend to the little people. Sad.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

If it were X, I would be doing Y. Always taking the moral high ground, eh? You don't even know me.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 12 years ago

Ethics are fundamental and can be understood...

It may 'seem' that ethics are simply relative, but they are not... that is why it is important to be objective instead of just becoming attached to assumptions that we have absorbed....

The idea of perfection is also not relevant... just because people have done things in the past does not mean they don't have legitimate grounds to point out ethical problems now... the idea is that we can try to improve ourselves as we gain understanding...

If no one has the right to call other people on unethical behavior, then technically arresting people and passing judgment and sentencing people would be a violation of 'no one is wrong'... and would be hypocritical...

The idea that laws are 'automatically ethical' or 'majority opinion is automatically ethical' or any other argument of this type is simply not accurate either...

Absolutist ethics based on blind belief or 'rights of kings' are not real ethics... so I can understand if someone wants to avoid this type of absolutism, but that does not invalidate real ethics...

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

I like what you have written and I agree to quite a few things here. But it's a lot of philosophy and that has never been one of my strong points. Always preferred numbers, symbols, equations, code.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 12 years ago

In some ways, we actually probably all have philosophical dispositions at some level, it can be seen in our basic justification system for our actions (like our internal ethical outlook or view of the world), however it is not often discussed as philosophy, or articulated as philosophy per se', like in public issues etc... so it is 'packaged' or viewed a little differently...

One of the issues is that, as you were alluding to, is that casual generalizations can come into discussions, and if we are not aware of this, it can cause continuing discord...

The interesting thing with some kinds of generalizing is that - both sides can be right about each others generalizing errors... so arguments can often continue on in a circlular way, where one points out a miistake, then the other does, and it can go on and on...

There is a disconnect in ethical areas and philosophy can help, but we are usually focused on other social aspects or careers, and it does not have much cultural momentum (not to mention most philosophy is actually confused) and so this can end up with a recipe where it is not common in mainstream discussion... so I also understand why many may seem disenchanted with philosophical approaches as well...

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

I would have liked to study philosophy if I had the time.

[-] -2 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 12 years ago

Agreed. They have all sorts of problems. They're all grown up enough to borrow money and take risks, just not grown up enough to deal with repayment and the chance the risks don't work out. Then it's a bad bank being mean to them out of greed. It's a litany of "free" from healthcare to housing to college educations.

Then it's "greed". Banks are greedy, just not people that borrow for things they can't afford. Banks are bad, just not people that covet a cruise, a car, too much house, that 6th year of college (LOL), or that consumer spending on a credit card that lands them in debt trouble. See, in the OWS blamers world, debt wasn't even a choice, it was forced on them by bad greedy other people. They conveniently absolve themselves of everything.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

Well I would agree that there have been some cases of predatory lending and horror stories. But I also know lot of people with very little income but a dozen credit cards, with another half a dozen maxed out. People use credit card debt like personal loans, that really bad judgement. The rates on unsecured credit (i.e cards) are far higher than a personal loan. If you wanna buy something big, take a personal loan or save up or borrow from friends. Don't use the credit card.

[-] -2 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 12 years ago

Predatory lenders mostly "preyed" on investors, not home buyers. The no money down crowd lost nothing; keep that in mind. OWS hasn't.

Debt is a choice. Greed for stuff drove debt. OWS ignores this ugly reality.