Forum Post: Which situation will make you happiest?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 7:57 p.m. EST by VladimirMayakovsky
(796)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You earn $10k/year, your neighbor earns $5k.
You earn $5k, your neighbor earns $5k.
You earn $50k, your neighbor earns $1M.
Let Us All Clearly See Just Where This Troll Is Coming From :
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-poor-and-middle-class-people-have-kids-that/ ...
The post linked to above is the reason I was obliged to award "Vlad, The Impaler Of The Poor", with the 'Dr. Joseph Mengele Prize' for Services to Humanitarian Discourse.
Rising to This Troll's Bait Will Only Serve ... The Sith !
cave canem ...
You are very angry.
No SH!T Sherlock !
You're so sharp that you might just cut yourself ... and do the rest of us a favour in the process .. you Energy Vampire .
momento mori ...
[Deleted]
You get equal opportunity to score a goal, but you don't get to play with twice the team size because you lack skills. That would violate the fair playing field.
You should answer your own question. Then we'll know what your getting at.
We know what he's getting at, Vlad.
Why not just answer the question?
When money is a person's only value system, they are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
I agree. That's why I think the OWS folks need to stop whining about income inequality. It is only money. How about some spirituality instead?
There is no whining. Only a statement of moral, spiritual, and social inequity.
That really doesn't bother me. It's just the income inequality angle that makes me chuckle. Who cares about the moral, spiritual, and social inequity bullshit. But money is something very real. I am happy to note that OWS have topped whining about monetary inequality.
But clearly it does. Or else you wouldn't be 'chuckling', as you so jovially put it.
So what's really your concern? Something personal to loose, or some moral bankruptcy you perceive?
Oh, talk about income inequality does bother me. Who knows, one day there may be a vote that brings back 90% taxes? As long as I can keep earning as much as I can with impunity, I am cool. If the OWS were to leave that bit alone, and whine about my moral, spiritual and social failings I wouldn't bat an eyelid. Such whining doesn't have the potential to hurt me in any way.
Ok. Being a greedy bitch is an honorable answer. Just be honest about it. Don't double talk. It's self-deprecating.
..and btw, check you stats. 90% hasn't existed except for a handful of places. However, if you had lived in one of them, I can understand your polarization.
But, check yourself buddy. You're not there anymore. You have to assimilate.
That's what I keep telling OWS supporters, that being a greedy bitch is fine. Just say that you want high paying jobs in the USA protected by tariffs so that the Chinese laborers die from starvation. It is perfectly honorable. I am proud to be greedy, so why do OWS supporters double talk so much and post such from their Chinese made laptops?
Well, the computer products built by Foxcomm in China, that you have take up with Steve Jobs and his associates. It was their decision. Oops wait! Free market. So sorry.
You dodged 90% totally.
The Chinese hold a massive financial leverage on the US, so don't tell me tell me they're fucked. The people there are fucked because of their local government (i.e. Tiananmen Square situations)
I'm not entirely sure what double talk you're trying to infer now, but last time I checked, greed is a deadly sin in most religions.
Jus' sayin'.
I see. It is Steve Jobs' fault to build the machine in China, but not yours that you buy the machine while whining about jobs going to China. Makes perfect sense to me. This is what I like about OWS supporters. They have such clarity in their thoughts.
Actually, I've never owned one of Steve Jobs' products, but that's not the point.
You're just deflecting again.
And I've hardly whined about China, if anything I pointed out they're getting railed harder than you by their government. They just potentially have financial leverage over us.
But you keep dancing around answering your OWN question of: " Which situation will make you happiest? "
You've implied it, but have not stated your OWN assessment.
(...btw... where is the 90% answer anyway. You keep dodging that too..)
No, you just owned a bunch of other Chinese made goods while whining about the loss of jobs in the USA. The 90% tax? Remember 1960? As for my answer? Of course I would try to make the most money for myself regardless of what others have, so choice #3, which I have already stated clearly.
Re. "Who cares about the moral, spiritual, and social inequity bullshit. But money is something very real."
Thus, 'Vlad The Self Impaler' = Ethically Eviscerated ; Darkside Dolt !
And He Offers A Real Insight Into The Dark Heart Of The 1% !!
Worra Wanker !!!
Income inequality translates directly into resource inequality. The vast majority of the world's resources are controlled by a few for their own benefit. Money is just a construct that facilitates this.
When resource consumption is a person's only value system, they are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
Hoarders of money/resources do so at the expense of others.
Native cultures - cultures that survived for millennia - considered those who took more than they needed mentally ill. A recent psychological study showed that bankers are more destructive than psychopaths.
Who took more than they needed, eh? I guess that's how most of the world thinks of Americans, even the poorest ones. Would you disagree? Or does the rest of the world doesn't matter?
How long do you think Americans can continue to have 5% of the world's population and consume 30% of the world's resources, at the expense of the third world? Now that jobs and resources and income are going to the third world Americans like the OWS folks are up in arms.
What do you think that says about their mental state?
I agree. Buy now - pay later. We've finally gotten to the second part.
Which Americans are clearly not liking, hence the OWS movement. It is really funny that the OWS wants to lower income inequality in the USA, all in the name of social and moral good, but raise income inequality across the globe, as if the Chinese are not humans.
In case you haven't noticed, the occupations are global, and a direct response to corporate financial globalization and corruption. OWS is part of and supports these global movements.
http://www.occupytogether.org/actions/
Let's stay on topic for a second, as this is the OWS movement's web site. What do OWS guys want? I have heard the word living wage many many times from them. What does that mean? That means Americans get paid more than the going wage for the working class in the global market. How do they want to ensure that? By having unions that prevent offshoring of jobs. What does that imply? That the Chinese laborers lose their jobs. There is no getting around this fact.
[Deleted]
By any legal means is the US and international standard. Works very well for the talented.
How about if you earn $50k, and your neighbor earns $1 Billion, or $2 Billion and more. Where do you think these excessive profits are coming from? This is the situation we have today. I don't have a problem with somebody making a few mill or more, but when it gets into the hundreds of millions or a billion a year income and more, clearly that is excessive and needs to be taxed heavily. On the other hand I don't think everybody should get the same pay, there would be no incentive to work hard.
You're not making the decisions they make. That's the difference. If your decisions saved or made millions for a company, maybe you'd get a bonus that big.
Clearly it is excessive? Can you please explain the clarity of that logic to me?
The period before the Depression there was a great gap between the lowest and highest incomes, and a small middle class. When capitalism collapsed from the the weight of this inequity, policies were put in place in America to narrow the gap. Unions were strengthened to raise workers wages, and taxes were increased on the upper class and used to reduce the unemployment rate by various public works programs. We were recovering from the Depression when in 1937 there was pressure to balance the budget, so we cut back on the public works programs. We fell into a recession and didn't come out until WW2. After the war, due to more equality in incomes we had a generation of economic growth like we've never seen, due to the increased purchasing power of the middle class.
That doesn't explain why a billion is excessive income.
If one person makes a billion at the expense of thousands of workers having to take pay cuts or worse, getting fired. Or products overpriced because of a monopoly, then that is excessive. There is only so much money to go around, when so much ends up in the hands of a few, there are millions that are either underpaid or overcharged. This is a natural result of un-regulated capitalism.
Why is a billion clearly excessive and not a million? After all, there is only so much money to go around (which is not true, but regardless). I am just trying to figure out how you objectively draw that artificial line beyond which things become excessive. So far, I haven't gotten a good objective answer.
You don't have to draw an exact line, but when you have a few people ending up controlling the vast bulk of wealth it has never worked out well. Eventually monopolies have to be broken up. The wealthiest have to be taxed more. They will not look out for the good of the majority of the population, in fact the population's loss is their gain. If you want numbers, I would say tax 60% over 100 million, 50% over 10 million, 40% over a million, 30% from 250k -1 mIllion, etc. Something like that.
Why would you say that? All I am trying to do is understand your logic as to why you are setting up these cutoffs. Is there some reason behind it or is it just random? When you fuck around with people's income you better have good reason to do so. Wages are determined by the market, which is basically a collective reasoning of millions of people. That's why free market wages are far superior to arbitrarily decided wages. So why arbitrarily decide taxes on wages? Give me some kind of a rationale as to why you would have a specific taxation pattern.
The rationale for progressive taxation? One reason off the top of my head you cannot fund a modern government sufficiently by taxing everybody at the same rate without putting too great a burden on the lower classes. Also without progressive taxation the wealthy become disproportionately wealthier and that leads to political instability (which is why you and I are here at the occupy wall street forum).
Oh, I fully agree with progressive taxation. I am just asking how you came up with the exact cutoffs and percentages.
With the numbers I picked I was thinking back to a time before we had this huge gap between incomes and was trying to guess what numbers we could use to compress the gap to where it was in the 50's and 60's. Even though this is redistribution of wealth, in my opinion this tax money should be used for job creation (when the private sector cannot create enough jobs by itself, something that we will see more and more of as automation increases), and not to be used for handouts to able bodied workers to stay idle.
So, you didn't come up with the cutoffs and tax percentages because people were making excessive money (like you said before). You merely decided to take a certain period in history as the norm and then decided to craft a tax policy that would turn the clock back in economic terms and take us back to that norm. I can understand that. That's objective. But you have not been able to defend your position that certain levels of income is excessive. You only have said that it is different from a historical norms. However, in doing so, you chose one particular segment of history vs. another. Why choose that part and not another part? What's the objective reason for that?
It's called profiteering.
It's also hoarding a resource, and that's morally and spiritually bankrupt.
I heard that someplace.
Still doesn't explain why it is excessive. But I can see that you are very upset with me. Is there anything I can do to make you happy? Like offer you a job? I can use a butler.
I'm not morally and spiritually bankrupt. Why do back that now, yet you condemned a few posts ago?
You could cure my wife's hemiplegia. Since you are so magical.
I can't cure that, but I will gladly pay taxes to provide for her medical care. However, I can't support you earning a higher wage because your wife has an illness. You can't fuck around with the free market. It is what it is, and you have to accept the salary that it offers to you. That will make you much happier.
There is no "free market". Why do you think that?
To be morally and spiritually bankrupt is to be insane. A sociopath, sometimes even a psychopath. There are treatments for those conditions. So a rich man like yourself, could help cure it.
I worked for over 40 years. I'm retired and I am happy. Besides, you'd fire me for dropping your martini.
Why do you think there is no free market?
I think you care a lot about what other people think of you. It stems from insecurity. Since I am secure, I don't care what other people think of me. My heart goes out to you.
Now, if you are on a pension, remember that the money is coming from investments in the very same corporations that you love to denigrate. I am not asking you to stop being a hypocrite. I don;t think you can do that. I am just asking you to be aware of the hypocrisy.
All markets are controlled by some entity. Not free at all, in fact can't be.
Then you are an admitted sociopath? You should seek help, you have the resources
Where did I denigrate? Now you're just makin' stuff up.
If you have never spoken ill of corporations then I apologize. If you have then you are a liar. Only you know (and I do too) which one it is.
A free market is not the same as an out of control market. It is not the Wild, Wild West. An economics lesson is sorely needed here.
As for being a sociopath, I never really put much thought into those things. You think I am a sociopath and need help? Why do I need help? How is it hurting me?
The gap between average earnings and the top income bracket is excessive.
Why? That's the part no one is willing to explain. I hear all of you guys loud and clear. You are jealous of people who earn more than you. But that's not the point I am trying to clarify here. My question is, how do you draw a line - objectively - beyond which incomes become excessive.
You seem to be willfully misunderstanding. Read the post above by Alternativesyngery again. It's not sustainable to have wealth concentrated to a small number of people. Even if you don't care about the impact on the lower 99%, it's doesn't create a stable economic and social environment. You seem to believe that if people would just be happy with their lot everything would be okay. Small business and large corporations alike have to worry if the majority of people are unable to afford their products and services. And no one benefits from an out of control economic system where most of the wealth that exists is created through bizarre financial instruments like derivatives and collateralized debt, rather than reinvested in the real economy. But you don't have to take our word for it. Just sit back, watch and you will see.
that's all fine and good but how do you determine what level of concentration is OK and what level is excessive. I am just asking for an objective criteria. Perhaps there are studies done that predict that 33.457% concentration is OK but all hell breaks loose after that. If yes, please quote such a study. If not, please stop throwing around words such as it is clear what is excessive. It is not clear at all. All people are doing is pulling random stuff out of their ass. This is not the way economic policy should be made. We need economists to weigh in on this.
Here's an economists........:)
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/
Come on, get me a real one, not one who plays one on the internet.
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.
Thanx 'PC' for that excellent New Grist To The Mill. GR8 !!
that quote is from the home page at
http://www.TheMoneyMasters.com
thanx
Nice One 'PC', I thought that I'd heard it before ...
Thus, re. The Mesmeric-Mythical-Money-Matrix that 'Vlad The Self-Impaler' & his ilk are so enamoured of, please dear reader - see Bill Still's "The Money Masters": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&fe....
& "The Secret of Oz": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g .
Good Call 'PC' ! Stay Well & Aware ...
pax, amor et lux.
thanx - you do too.
If we are talking about reality, it is a non-choice. The only income with which I'd actually have neighbors and not be living in a homeless shelter is number 3.
Who would actually choose to earn 5 or 10 K regardless of what anyone else earns?
And also...there are very few places to live where you earn 50K and your neighbor earns 1 million. Maybe some few exceptions here and there but not usually, especially not in suburbs. They tend to be economically homogeneous
haha... I want to be the guy that makes a million and has no neighbors whatsoever. In fact, that is my ONLY goal in life.
You don't even put "lol" after your post which may have implied a sense of humour or irony ! Are you familiar with the word 'MISANTHROPE' ?! ;-)
Haha... Well, I may not be intimately familiar with it on a philosophical level. But you must understand that some level of the solo-ist is inherent in all philosophy.
To say that Hell is other people is to merely create an equation... so as you can see, people like me, require a world of our own that allows more freedom of thought.
@ 'betua$' : Tho' I don't agree with it, I like your answer and I bet (Ua$!) that we'd have a good laugh over a few drinks where I'd argue that every "solo-ist", at least occasionally - secretly craves an orchestra ... if not an audience !! ;-) x 2
I think I just lost that round... what are you having?
You've lost nothing mate and have only shown yourself to be a person of good humour & honour.
Unlike 'Vladimir' ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-poor-and-middle-class-people-have-kids-that/ ), who is desperately deleting his own posts on this thread and who has 'Progressively' (& he'll choke on that word, lol!) Shown himself to be a bit of an (x) by exposing himself as a 1%er-Eugenicist-NutJob !!!
However, seeing as though you're asking mate - mine's a Conservative Cocktail of Reactionary Rum and Tory Tequila over ice, please !!
Otherwise, being British, I'll settle for a Pint of Real Ale or a Cup o' Tea ;-) !
Stay well & healthy 'betua$'
pax.
haha
;-) & I'll have to re-direct to what 'Vlad The Self-Impaler' has sneakily co-opted you into towards the end of the thread on http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-poor-and-middle-class-people-have-kids-that/ .
Mate, I just couldn't countenance you being folded into Vlad's Dark world via "You('re) saying that some people are morons and hence don't earn much and the rest of society has to subsidize them." Vlad is a 1%er Psycho ... he thinks that WE are all morons .. whereas we (or those with the eyes to see) know that he's not even human ...
I'm off for my much needed "Cup o' Tea". See you round on the threads another time.
pax et lux.
Depends on inflation.
Also what kind of $s are we talking? American, Pesos, Yen?
It's all just monopoly money until some bureaucrats say its worth something and force people to conduct trade with it.
American dollars, 0% inflation now and forever. So, make your choice please?
The last one of course. I have no problem with having a neighbor that makes more than me.
I do have a problem if he/she obtained their money through unethical practices (drug dealing/ gambling with other peoples pensions) and I earned my money contributing to society (as a physician)
You are into moderating other people's ethics, eh? Are you a bible thumping right wing Teabagger?
Who said moderating?
Why are they earning more than hard working people when they aren't contributing anything positive to society?
It's a matter of correcting the system itself to reinforce positive behaviors.
Do you realize that people are paid not according to how hard they work, but according to the demand for their services?
Yes, and that is part of the problem. The current system encourages the manipulation of earnings and salaries disproportionately.
That's part of why there is so much unrest. Corrupt individuals/groups are rewarded for their activities much more than traditional hard working individuals/groups. Again, its the system that must be corrected.
You think if someone's services are in high demand they shouldn't be paid more? Instead people whose services are in low demand should be paid handsome wages? Is it opposite day?
[Deleted]
If there is demand for someone's services, there is never a lack of employers.
In high demand to who? Drug addicts, arms dealers?
Simply being in high demand doesn't mean their services are needed nor beneficial.
In high demand to those who want to pay for it. This is a free country last I checked.
Free for who? People with enough money to promote aberrant behavior?
"In a truly free nation no one has to tell you you are free"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSG80Ago2Kk
Aberrant behavior? Are you by any chance a bible thumper?
Have to go with 2. Assuming we're talking today's dollars, it doesn't matter to me what others make.
Why 2? Why not 3? You will leave 10x the money on the table just to spite your neighbor? Wow!
Oh god, sorry I read all the other answers then messed up the on the number my choice was. Is it politically correct to make myself a blonde joke if I'm a blonde? I meant 3. The reason is what I wanted, if doesn't hurt me if someone else is better off.
If you choose #3, there is a vacant house next door.
Yeah, it's the Allbright's home. They use it as a holiday home.
What do you choose?
if i want to be greedy, I could choose #1 because that gives me more buying power than you, but realistically, I choose #3, because I want to make as much money as I can, and just because you make more, does not diminish my earnings.
I want to be your neighbor....
would you be mine, could you be mine, wont you be my neighbor?
Avoiding the question I see. Are you a OWS supporter? I have found that it is very hard to get them to answer a straight question. Earlier I asked about living wage and no one would calculate it for me. They would just say that it has to be higher, meaning rather lavish.
I saw the thread earlier with the same relative issue.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-my-fair-share/
BTW, I want to be your neighbor because you want your neighbor to earn $1M.
Vlad, you have to remember that your not dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer here. If they were they wouldn't fall for the socialist line and would have high paying, meaningful jobs. Apparently it is beyond the comprehension capability of many of these clowns to understand that not everyone can be a king, and that it takes more than whining to become successful.
I disagree. They know exactly what you are talking about. But they won't admit it because then they will have to upskill to get rich. And that's too much like real work.
True. Angry, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life.
The good news is that they will keep suffering.
The bad news is that they may make some of us suffer as well. Nothing helps a bad mood like spreading it around.
Nah, they are pretty impotent.
LoL !!!
Says the dickless, 'name-stealer' 'Vlad', whose own potency extends to clearing out his own posts on this thread lest the rest of us notice his dicklessness !!
What a sad, self-loving Onanist / Pseudo Occulist / Wannabe Wanker you are 'Vlad', you Total Horse's (x) !
verb. sat. sap. ?
You are really, really angry.
Q : "Which situation will make you happiest?" A : For Me, On These Threads ? ...
WHEN You've Addressed your schizoid behaviour ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ ll)
AND when you've resolved your Identity Crises { http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/ }
ET 'bon chance' ...
The problem is that if you are earning $50k both of your neighbors these days are out of work or soon to be.
THIS IS WHY http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-war-with-america-was-won-before-the-first-shot/
I would gladly earn 20K if it meant that the single mothers, the homeless, the elderly, and people who were down on their luck could make more than me.
How about you earn 10K and your neighbor earns 5K and you employ your neighbor.
or
You and your neighbor earn 5 K via magic.
or You earn 30K and your neighbor earns 25K and you are employed by a company that makes 4M which the owner of makes 120k and has 20 employees, and your neighbor is employed by a company that makes 3M, pays the owner 100k and has 30 employees....
Much more accurate.
Yeah, so what would be your choice?
The first or the last one. ;)
It would be extremely rare for anyone earning $1 million a year to live next door to a person earning $50,000 a year. Almost as rare as a "meat lovers" pizza at a vegan convention.
The entire premise is ridiculous.
Nice way to avoid the question.
I haven't avoided anything. The entire premise is completely ridiculous.
What would make me happy is being the neighbor making $1 Million a year.
If I had no choice other than to choose one of your scenarios, I would always rather live next to someone making $1 Million a year than anyone making $5 or $10 grand per year.
An area with people making $5 or $10 grand per year would be a dirty, filthy, crime ridden slum. Just like most of the OWS encampments are now.
[Deleted]
Nepotism is rare in corporations. It is all small business territory.
Is that the Literal application of nepotism, or the applied version your talking about?
(Don't blow a fuse Googling that one. Trick question. Same dynamic, just different Genes.)
[Deleted]
That's rare too. Again, that's all govt and small business domain. Corporations are ruthless about making money. If a bum on the street will make money for them they will hire the bum and pay him/her millions. But if you don;t make money, you are persona non grata. As well you should be, as corporations exist for only one reason, to make money for shareholders.
[Deleted]
Sadly, that's not true. Public corporations exist to make money for shareholders, no more or less. Which is why I chuckle whenever I see someone complaining about some CEO moving jobs offshore to save money. It is as if the CEO had the right to not do so, and do charity with the shareholders money.
Sad deflection Vlad. When are there open referendums to shareholders for offshore re-locations, or reverse-splits on holdings? Rarely. The fucking shareholders are just as hostage, as the non-shareholders.
Get real buddy. You're just as helpless as the next guy in OWS. (..or prove me wrong.)
Hedge funds that own majority of the shares sway decisions all the time. And they like massive offshoring. You are not familiar with the inner workings of corporations at all.
[Deleted]
then sell the stock.
[Deleted]
I'm sorry. Was that financial advice, or some witty quip no-one is privy to?
[Deleted]
It vibing no yo. Cool not. 'A'ole
I do not have any employees. But I wouldn't tell anyone either to buy or not buy stocks. As adults they should be able to research how corporations work, how financial markets work, how economics work, and decide for themselves. There are lots and lots of good universities that will teach them this information, should they decide to take a break from work and get a degree.
The situation when you and your fellow trolls shut your filthy mouths and crawl back into the outhouse you slithered from.
Well that depends what the consumer price index is.
It's like the current USA, at 0% inflation forever.
You forgot to delete this post 'Vladimir' and your frequent post deletion on this thread is quite correctly exposing you as an Incoherent Idiot and All Round Dolt !!
I didn't delete any posts. People don't like my posts so they downvote and hide it. It's childish, but what can you do? It's just an expression of impotent anger from people like you who can't earn a good living.
LoL !! You dishonest slimy, scum-sucker ...
Delete a post ; realise that you leave a foot print and scurry back to 'back-fill' with more of your drivel.
I'll Keep P!SS!NG All Over 'People' Like You, wherever & whenever I find you & your limp-dicked ilk and simply watch you hang yourself on your own petard !!
ie. When poster 'nucleus' beautifully & succinctly says "When money is a person's only value system, they are morally and spiritually bankrupt." : You, you psychopathic piece of shit, disingenuously reply with "I agree. That's why I think the OWS folks need to stop whining about income inequality. It is only money. How about some spirituality instead?" - thinking that you've been sooo very clever.
Later, when poster 'nuceus' wisely writes : "Income inequality translates directly into resource inequality. The vast majority of the world's resources are controlled by a few for their own benefit. Money is just a construct that facilitates this." - A rather brilliant post, to which all you can manage is : "When resource consumption is a person's only value system, they are morally and spiritually bankrupt.", like a parroting fool who has NO idea what he means by what he has learnt to say !!
SO, 'name-stealer Vlad', WTF do you now mean by "I didn't delete any posts. People don't like my posts so they downvote and hide it. It's childish, but what can you do? It's just an expression of impotent anger from people like you who can't earn a good living."
I$ money your only criterion of 'worth' you "MORALLY & SPIRITUALLY BANKRUPT" psychopath ? Did Mummy NOT love you enough, dedums ?!
You may not have the wit to see your own irony and paradox... but rest assured, other readers can.
Get your head outta your (x) fool & go grow a pair ...
F**K-WIT !
You know, such impotent anger is not good for your arteries.
The frequency of your use of the word 'impotent' should be seen & understood via the psychological precepts of 'Projection' and 'Transference'.
Dickless Dolt !
ps : I stand corrected and withdraw my accusations re. The Matter Of Your Self-Deletion Of Your Own Posts. I'd never before noticed the hiding of crap posts but on reflection, it does make consummate sense. ;-)
How is your blood pressure?
125/70 but at least my heart is warm, still beats and seeks to 'feel' ...
You should come down to Zucchini Park and cop a feel.
Now, now 'Vlad', don't relapse and revert to type (cf http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ LL !)
multum in parvo ...
That's an imposter. It is sad.
Re. "http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ LL" ... 'Vlad' neatly impales himself (yet again!) with the recidivist posting of "That's an imposter. It is sad." !
Is suffering from a "Schizoid Embolism" another one of your myriad Psychological Illnesses ?!
Are you yet again in "The Egyptian River", paddling furiously against the currents of time and history ?!!
Nosce Te Ipsum, you "Crazy Troll" and ...
Gnothi Seauton.
Hmm... I would say options 3. Even if my neightbor is kicking my ass, I'm kicking ass compared to the CPI so I'm ok
Not sure where you got this but there's a similar recent survey that showed that, given a choice, people favor relative versus absolute wealth.
That is, versus a situation where they'd be making $100K and their friends also making $100K, they'd rather have the circumstance where they'd be making $50K and their friends making $25K.
And that seems to be an inherent competitve instinct/trait per studies like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html
Oh, I know that. I would choose #3 of course. You would think the OWS supporters would choose #2, but I suspect that they will choose #1. Let's see what people do here.
Oops... didn't mean to skew your test. I can delete my post if you want.
I suppose that it might vary depending on the wording. If by "neighbor" you mean all of your neighbors (i.e., relative wealth versus the rest of the society), then I likely would pick 1. If you mean relative to a single neighbor all else varying however it might, then I'd likely go with 3 also. Hard to judge with no other context since in the grand scheme of things all "wealth" is relative.
See, I must be the strange one. I don;t care how much other people earn. I just want to earn much as I can. so of the three options I would choose the $50k without even reading the second half of the situations. Who cares what other people have? That's just petty jealousy and who has time for that? Life is not a competition to have more toys than the guy next door. As long as I can earn the most I can I am cool. But I do understand that for most people wealth is relative. It is always the pursuit for bigger and better, while I am satisfied with big and good. I need to get my head checked I guess.
"I need to get my head checked I guess." !!!
NOW you finally show insight !!
Good Lad. Now Do Just That !
facta non verba ...
Again, it depends on how you're framing the question.
If my $10K versus $5K gives me relatively greater wealth within the larger society as a whole, then I'm obviously better off choosing that.
If it's more as you describe where the dollar amounts are equal to what they are now, then hey, more power to them. I'm cool with $50K.
The question is, would you rather be relatively wealthier in a country of dirt poor peasants, or be middle class in a country of millionaires? Or, in true OWS spirit, would you want to be in a country where everyone is a dirt poor peasant?
In that case I'd pick "middle class" since that would represent higher absolute weatlh for me independent of whatever that might be relative to anyone else. That is, for example, rather than having to catch my food and drink crappy water, while I may not be able to afford the best, I still would have easy access to food, clean running water, etc. That beats being King of the Pygmy tribe and still having to scrounge for food and water.
You are wiser than the OWS folks.
Making fun of OWS idiots is the situation that makes me happiest.
d) I earn one million porn stars \ yr and die from a heart attack at 33... Wait.. 34
For a group that advocates getting rid of money, there sure is a lot of talk/lust about it here.
Anyway, put me down for the $50K in that scenario. And God Bless the guy earning the million.