Forum Post: we must help the rich
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 10:41 a.m. EST by Oberon
(35)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
they are in a sort of prison, obsessed with material possessions, that was probably handed down to them in most cases or through ill gotten gains. then this same money goes to work in corrupting the halls of power...the peoples power. yes we live in a material world, but we are Spirits living in the material world...ask Sting.
Watch out for the "Millionaire Wannabees" too: http://conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47/ "The right likes to think that every Leftist “hates” the “rich”. I suppose there are those on the Left who hate the rich, but if they do, their anger is misplaced. It’s the “wannabe’s” you have to watch out for."
in my experience, its a lot better to live a life that approximates the life you would lead in a world with no other people.
Yes, and I'm glad someone is pointing that out.
See also: "The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950124/ "Children of affluence are generally presumed to be at low risk. However, recent studies have suggested problems in several domains—notably, substance use, anxiety, and depression—and 2 sets of potential causes: pressures to achieve and isolation from parents. Recognizing the limited awareness of these issues, the objectives in this paper are to collate evidence on the nature of problems among the wealthy and their likely causes. The first half of the paper is focused on disturbances among affluent children and the second half is focused on characteristics of their families and neighborhoods. Widespread negative sentiments toward the rich are then discussed, and the paper concludes with suggestions for future work with families at the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum."
And: "Children of the Affluent: Challenges to Well-Being" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948879/ "Growing up in the culture of affluence can connote various psychosocial risks. Studies have shown that upper-class children can manifest elevated disturbance in several areas—such as substance use, anxiety, and depression—and that two sets of factors seem to be implicated, that is, excessive pressures to achieve and isolation from parents (both literal and emotional). Whereas stereotypically, affluent youth and poor youth are respectively thought of as being at “low risk” and “high risk,” comparative studies have revealed more similarities than differences in their adjustment patterns and socialization processes. In the years ahead, psychologists must correct the long-standing neglect of a group of youngsters treated, thus far, as not needing their attention. Family wealth does not automatically confer either wisdom in parenting or equanimity of spirit; whereas children rendered atypical by virtue of their parents' wealth are undoubtedly privileged in many respects, there is also, clearly, the potential for some nontrivial threats to their psychological well-being."
See also: http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/buddhist_economics/english.html "The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people, an evil lack of compassion and a soul-destroying degree of attachment to the most primitive side of this worldly existence. Equally, to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure."
There is also a related issue if you consider chattel slavery in the US South before the Civil War -- that the institution of slavery was horrible for the slaves of course, but it was also morally corroding to the slave holder and stunting of their own spiritual development. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
And an alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
And why even millionaires should support a basic income as to their own benefit and the benefit of their families: http://www.livableincome.org/amillionairegli.htm
Why do people copy and paste and post shit like this?
Don't you have anything original to say? How many people do you think actually read all of this?
I'd think references to the published literature that reference actual studies (not just hearsay or speculation) supportive to the poster's point might be of interest to some people. Why overvalue originality? Very little is original in this world.
A bigger issue is the "great forgetting" that happens with each new generation. See: "Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society" http://books.google.com/books?id=U5hXpnwUmW4C
One of the reasons we're in this problem in the first place in government by sound bites.
[Removed]