US should drop atomic bomb on Iran -- University debate from Sirius B dwarf

[Rashiminos]

Okay guys... seriously... what the crap? Haven't you seen someone go MAD with UNLIMITED POWAH! before?

Page 3 is usually reserved for more appealing fare.

I'm more dismayed that intelligent people, like many here on CFC, barely scrape by, but a clear lunatic like this is a multi-billionaire. Doesn't say much for capitalism.

It says a lot actually.

Yes, because all intelligent people are attracted to the exact same fields!

Which is to say that intelligence is not, in itself, a path to wealth. Something else is required. Defiant has the general idea.

 

[Rashiminos]

Nope, Defiant said that "truly intelligent people become wealthy." That is directly correlating intelligence with financial success. I am merely stating that I wish intelligence correlated to financial success; then, abandoning all pretensions at humility, I feel I would be at least a reasonably wealthy man. Seeing idiots like this guy, and, less dangerously, the Kardashians, practically drowing in their own money, depresses me.

Newsflash: This guy is "truly intelligent." You're confusing ethics* and intellect. Kardashian is well-paid.

Spoiler :

Not that this surprises me.

then they can figure out how to play the system.

I really cannot say much more about it without breaking a forum rule or two.

 

[Rashiminos]

No, he's a nut who is good with money. People can have skills and still be nuts. Clive Palmer in Australia is a great example; he's accused his political opponents of launching a military coup against him, personally, despite the fact he has, at most, four seats in both houses of Parliament. He's still worth several hundred million dollars, minimum.

Adelson is one of the richest (publicly acknowledged) men in the world. If he was as much of a fool as you wishfully made him out to be, his money would leave his company [Edit: in a more permanent fashion]. And now you're back to (name-)calling him a lunatic (a question of sanity moreso than intellect).

 

[Defiant47]

Yes, because all intelligent people are attracted to the exact same fields!

It is indeed inequitable the way it is. I was merely making some sort of driveby comment that intelligent people can choose to be wealthy or do what they love, or get lucky and have them coalesce (or get unlucky and be born too poor to make it out).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

True that I have to say. Say what you will about some of the capitalistic rhetoric, but in rich nations IMO everybody has a decent shut at becoming fairly wealthy. It just may require an uncompromising pursuit of wealth for the sake of wealth.

 

[Defiant47]

True that I have to say. Say what you will about some of the capitalistic rhetoric, but in rich nations IMO everybody has a decent shut at becoming fairly wealthy. It just may require an uncompromising pursuit of wealth for the sake of wealth.

Indeed. If a person does their research they can select a lucrative field. In the US, they'll get buried in debt, but if they play their cards right, they'll end up wealth in the long run. But it's just as fair as picking on a few kids randomly in gym class and telling them they have to run 10 times as much to pass the class. With hard work and dedication, they too can be successful eventually.

 

[Farm Boy]

A society is still probably fundamentally flawed if industries that concentrate wealth rather than create wealth are amongst the most highly compensated. Like ours presently is.

 

[Defiant47]

A society is still probably fundamentally flawed if industries that concentrate wealth rather than create wealth are amongst the most highly compensated. Like ours presently is.

Depends on what your society's values are. One way of looking at it is that each person and each industry should be compensated according to their contribution and the value they bring. There are massive efficiencies and synergies created by industries that apportion and "concentrate" wealth. Sure, you make $50 dollars worth of shoes each day, but with my smart managerial and industrial skills, I can help you make $150 dollars instead. Even though you're the one "creating" the wealth, I'm responsible for huge gains.

These industries can arguably be beneficial for society as well. Instead of investing funds into the shoe-maker who makes 100 shoes with each piece of leather, we have banks and venture capitalists analyze the industry and competitors and ensure that future investments and expansions happen to the shoe-maker who makes 120 shoes with each piece of leather.

Ultimately, it depends on your definition of "create wealth".

One fundamental flaw of our system is the cost of money. It's not that there's anything inherently "undeserving" in advisory services and optimizing where wealth should be invested compared to production centres... it's the concentrated wealth itself. It's the fact that once you have enough wealth, you don't have to work off it anymore, and can simply collect rents and interests. It's not the industry; it's who the industry is working for.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would still nuke the ability of stocks/bonds/futures contracts/etc to be bought and sold by electronic triggering.

 

[Borachio]

A society is still probably fundamentally flawed if industries that concentrate wealth rather than create wealth are amongst the most highly compensated. Like ours presently is.

Yes. I rather tend to agree.

However, this concentration of wealth is nothing new. So I'd expect the system to have imploded on itself long ago.

It seems then, that there's also some mechanism(s) for the periodic de-concentration of wealth going on as well.

The really wealthy dynasties are few and far between and they don't seem to outlast more than 3 or 4 generations.

Spoiler :

Today's example, probably, isn't any more inequitable than many other periods of time. And I'm not sure that the creation and concentration of wealth don't go hand-in-hand, btw.

 

[Defiant47]

I would still nuke the ability of stocks/bonds/futures contracts/etc to be bought and sold by electronic triggering.

The trading of stocks, in theory, is essential to running an efficient economy. The most profitable (and by extension, efficient) companies will receive the greatest investment from external parties. I am opposed to it only on the ultimate principle that the workers and the people should own the means of production, with no choice in the matter.

...I was about to go in a rant about the other ones, but it would have come across as accidentally condescending since I'm assuming you and most other people here know what these instruments are used for.

Suffice it to say that it's an extension of the design of the system we have here. Just like you can't have Canadian Tax law be any clearer and less convoluted. If you want to give a Small Business Deduction (i.e. tax credit), you need complicated rules to counteract people setting up holding corporations to take advantage of it. If you want to set different personal and corporate tax rates (obviously), then you need complicated rules to ensure that the system is fair, and that a mom'n'pop shop is taxed the same whether it's a corporation or a proprietorship.

Similarly, in the free market system we have, we need stocks, bonds, futures, and so on... which also necessitates opening the gates to speculative trading rather than just business trading (i.e. trading futures and options just to make money on speculation than actually using the grain you're trading for a business purpose).

 

[Farm Boy]

I didn't say render illegal speculation. But it still needs to be controlled. Like locusts might be a necessary part of the ecosystem, but I wouldn't give them free reign.

 

[Defiant47]

I didn't say render illegal speculation. But it still needs to be controlled. Like locusts might be a necessary part of the ecosystem, but I wouldn't give them free reign.

Nicely put

 

[Farm Boy]

Thank you.

I kinda liked that one. Though I had been a little worried last night it would be taken the wrong way.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Farm Boy turning right, turning left in his bed and wondering "Will they agree with me - on the Internet?!"

 

[Farm Boy]

More like, was that too mean? But nah, those concerns usually only bump around on the commute during the lulls in interesting radio coversation.

Other than that the kiddo, the family, et all usually keep me from obsessing too much about civfanatics during the evenings. Sometimes they're quiet enough to let me check to see what interesting thoughts have floated in from home and abroad over the weekends!

 

[Borachio]

I like it. It seems very apt.

I can't see what's mean about comparing speculators to locusts. When there's a bubble growing they become voracious feeders, don't they?

 

[Farm Boy]

I can't see what's mean about comparing speculators to locusts. When there's a bubble growing they become voracious feeders, don't they?

Well, I don't know that I would like being compared to a locust overmuch. A benign enough, if annoying, grasshopper if conditions are alright or if tended properly: or if not a mindless locust incapable of any actions other than breeding and shucking/devouring every single natural resource within the grasp of the group. I mean seriously, a group of locusts is called a "plague" for good reason.

 

[Defiant47]

Farm Boy turning right, turning left in his bed and wondering "Will they agree with me - on the Internet?!"

Happens to me too, although more from the context of "did I competently describe the point I was trying to make?". It can catch you off-guard at times before you kick in the "oh right, it's just a forum" reminder

 

[Borachio]

Well, I don't know that I would like being compared to a locust overmuch. A benign enough, if annoying, grasshopper if conditions are alright or if tended properly: or if not a mindless locust incapable of any actions other than breeding and shucking/devouring every single natural resource within the grasp of the group. I mean seriously, a group of locusts is called a "plague" for good reason.

And when a financial bubble bursts the results can be just as disastrous. And on a global scale too. At least locust plagues are fairly localized.