If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Abc.net.au)   Billionaire: "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socialising, and more time working"   (abc.net.au) divider line 440
    More: Obvious, smoking  
•       •       •

9338 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2012 at 11:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



440 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 12:57:57 PM  

dervish16108: dittybopper: The rich who lose all their money don't generally fall into long-term poverty due to misfortune or the occasional misstep, though they can fall into short term poverty. They end up clawing their way back out of it.

The rich have the ability to diversify their investments and retain enough so they don't become an overworked 99%er even in the worst case scenario. Of course maintaining that would take skills that most don't have.


True story. It's true that we should be equal under the law, and it's important to work towards that. But we're not actually equal. We all have different talents and abilities and it sucks that 90% of people don't have any that are worth much.
 
2012-08-30 12:58:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financ ...

It's nothing to do with the long term poor, she is talking about the middle class. The people who do the actual work that makes people like her rich.

She might actually do some work, but that's not where here money comes from, she simply inherited a company which gives her the right to take whatever the employees of the company produce and give them as little as she can get away with.

I have never understood why someone would be able to inherit an organization anyway, like it was a piece of furniture or something. It's almost like the feudal system where nobles inherit a manor and get to take a big share of what the serfs produce, simply because of birth.

Youre looking at it from the wrong angle. Why shouldn't the person who built the organization be able to do whatever he/she wants with it?

If I am smart/lucky/hard working enough to build a business worth $100m/$2m/150k or whatever, why shouldn't I be able to give it to my lazy stupid son? Sure, he didn't do anything to deserve it but I did and want it to go to him.


Because an organization is necessarily a group effort. Why do you get to claim ownership? Because you put down the start-up capital? Did you construct your factories, build all your production, organize the work, oversee it, handle all the sales and advertising? Those people clocking in everyday to ensure your business remains productive and successful have as much, if not a more, of a claim to owning their collective activity than you, the money-man. You don't "own" a corporation any more than you own the employees who do all the work. A corporation employs, produces goods, pays taxes; it is a social entity and as such a more democratic form of management and "ownership" which takes these other concerned parties into consideration is not only morally fairer but also more efficient, as Germany and Japan's heavily unionized and consistently robust manufacturing sectors prove.
 
2012-08-30 12:58:56 PM  

impaler: MycroftHolmes: but he also put in 100+ hour week after 100+ hour week to achieve success.

A lot of people put a lot of work into their business, only to end up bankrupt. One's odds of having a business still operating after 4 years is equal to betting on "black" at a roulette table.

[www.statisticbrain.com image 620x321]


It's supposed to be hard and time-consuming. If it wasn't, everyone would JUST DO IT.
 
2012-08-30 12:59:17 PM  
It's a crime obviously to be successful in the liberal world. Does being on food stamps and welfare make you a winner? According to Obama it does.
 
2012-08-30 12:59:34 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.


Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.
 
2012-08-30 12:59:44 PM  

vpb: Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

Youre looking at it from the wrong angle. Why shouldn't the person who built the organization be able to do whatever he/she wants with it?

If I am smart/lucky/hard working enough to build a business worth $100m/$2m/150k or whatever, why shouldn't I be able to give it to my lazy stupid son? Sure, he didn't do anything to deserve it but I did and want it to go to him.

No, you are looking at it from the wrong angle. A company is a group of people working together. You may have played a major role in building it, and you may be a part of it, but you didn't build it all by yourself.

You may have contributed money and time and maybe leadership, so you earned something. Not everything but something. Your son didn't. He certainly didn't earn the right to control other peoples livelihoods or to control the fraction of the economy that that company represents.


Isn't it up to me to decide if my son "earned" the right to own/control/run the company? I have spent a major portion of my life doing what I can to help run the company to where it is today. No, I didn't do it alone, and knowing that I also know I don't want to leave the company flapping in the wind when I do leave, so I want to be sure it is in good hands when I leave. I have also done my best to raise my son and prepare him for what lies ahead of him in the real world. If I feel he is suited to taking over my role at the company, isn't that my decision? If I feel like he would only run it into the ground, I'd like to think I'd be smart enough not to throw away everything I've worked for in life just because that dunce happens to be my kid.
 
2012-08-30 12:59:52 PM  

Heron: Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financ ...

It's nothing to do with the long term poor, she is talking about the middle class. The people who do the actual work that makes people like her rich.

She might actually do some work, but that's not where here money comes from, she simply inherited a company which gives her the right to take whatever the employees of the company produce and give them as little as she can get away with.

I have never understood why someone would be able to inherit an organization anyway, like it was a piece of furniture or something. It's almost like the feudal system where nobles inherit a manor and get to take a big share of what the serfs produce, simply because of birth.

Youre looking at it from the wrong angle. Why shouldn't the person who built the organization be able to do whatever he/she wants with it?

If I am smart/lucky/hard working enough to build a business worth $100m/$2m/150k or whatever, why shouldn't I be able to give it to my lazy stupid son? Sure, he didn't do anything to deserve it but I did and want it to go to him.

Because an organization is necessarily a group effort. Why do you get to claim ownership? Because you put down the start-up capital? Did you construct your factories, build all your production, organize the work, oversee it, handle all the sales and advertising? Those people clocking in everyday to ensure your business remains productive and successful have as much, if not a more, of a claim to owning their collective activity than you, the money-man. You don't "own" a corporation any more than you own the employees who do all the work. A corporation employs, produces goods, pays taxes; it is a social entity and as such a more democratic form of management and "ownership" which takes these other concerned parties i ...


Ever heard of a lazy German or Japanese person?
 
2012-08-30 01:00:11 PM  

TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

Yeah... Shut up.


And of course, she's whining for tax cuts and demanding wage cuts for the poor.

[Rinehart] suggested the government should lower the minimum wage of $606.40 a week and cut taxes to stimulate employment. 

Incidentally, the current weekly minimum wage in Australia ($606) is roughly what this born-an-inch-from-the-plate-thinks-she-hit-a-homer troll made last year ($598) every second.
 
2012-08-30 01:00:29 PM  

SweetBluebonnet: It's a crime obviously to be successful in the liberal world. Does being on food stamps and welfare make you a winner? According to Obama it does.


0.1/10
 
2012-08-30 01:00:36 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.


Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.
 
2012-08-30 01:00:47 PM  
My question is, objectively, what is rich?

I work as a project manager for a custom home construction business in Ohio and, right now, the economy and market is BOOMING again ... 2010 and 2011 were our best years in 20 years of business and 2012 is set to break all of our previous records.

That being said, I make a high five-figure salary and I live like a KING. I have two reasonably nice cars that are 100% paid off, I have a college education, I have a nice apartment, food in my fridge, I max out my 401k and my IRA contributions every year, and I have a satisfying savings account with 14 months salary in it.

But I live like a fraking KING on it. I lived in NYC on $12/hour, I lived in Chicago on $10/hour, I delivered pizzas in college, so I get the higher price of living in some cities, but come on, the whole notion that people making twice as much as me aren't rich is just stupid.

If you buy a $400,000 house and two new car payments and send your kids to private school and barely make ends meet on a $200k salary, well, you're not poor, you're not well off, you're financially retarded.

I grew up in a family of 6 in a 4 bedroom $150k house on the east side of Cleveland and we lived very nicely for WAY LESS than $200k a year. Either people's expectations of living are farked, or people think that a $400k home that you buy every 5 years is somehow normal or secure.

If you make more than $200k, ANYWHERE in the USA, you're rich in my eyes. You are rich enough to do whatever you want. If you choose to have 6 kids and send them all to private school and have two new cars in the garage and a McMansion in NoVA, well, sorry, you're just stupid, not poor. Stop defending the fact that you make more than 98% of people in the US and still struggle to make ends meet. That's your own damn fault, not Obamas.

/end rant ...
 
2012-08-30 01:01:25 PM  
She thinks that lowering the minimum wage would make employers hire more people. The big limitation on the number of people an employer hires, however, is whether there is a market for the employer's products. The problem isn't an unmet demand for products that companies can't afford to produce; it's a lack of demand for the products they already produce, basically because the economy is in the shiatter and people can't afford to buy their stuff. Paying people less money to produce the same amount of stuff won't increase that market; it will decrease it because fewer people can now afford to buy the relevant stuff.

Of course, this is only true if your market and your employees are essentially the same. if you're producing things to sell in another country, it doesn't matter if the people who work for you can afford to buy the products they're making or not (see: China). It seems like this individual wants to move Australia into the third world.
 
2012-08-30 01:03:05 PM  
Yep. Reducing the minimum wage, or as we do it, not increasing it, has done wonders for our economy! The wheels of commerce do not spin when people have no money to spend. Perfect logic.
 
2012-08-30 01:03:31 PM  

BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.


$10 is a shiat-ton of money?
 
2012-08-30 01:03:44 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.


So you're the Nigerian Prince?!
 
2012-08-30 01:03:58 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: HotWingConspiracy: Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financ ...

It's nothing to do with the long term poor, she is talking about the middle class. The people who do the actual work that makes people like her rich.

She might actually do some work, but that's not where here money comes from, she simply inherited a company which gives her the right to take whatever the employees of the company produce and give them as little as she can get away with.

I have never understood why someone would be able to inherit an organization anyway, like it was a piece of furniture or something. It's almost like the feudal system where nobles inherit a manor and get to take a big share of what the serfs produce, simply because of birth.

Youre looking at it from the wrong angle. Why shouldn't the person who built the organization be able to do whatever he/she wants with it?

If I am smart/lucky/hard working enough to build a business worth $100m/$2m/150k or whatever, why shouldn't I be able to give it to my lazy stupid son? Sure, he didn't do anything to deserve it but I did and want it to go to him.

Dynastic wealth has no place in a democracy.

In any event, go ahead and give it to him. He gets taxed on his new income. Sounds fair to me.

Asset confiscation has no place in a democracy either.

It has been part of ours since its founding.

But yeah I'm okay with treating inheritances as income, quite honestly. Not so much just to take from the rich, but because we need revenue.

Okay to do it to all inheritances I assume? You inherit your folks' $150k house that's taxable income to you for that year, ok?After all, if it's income to a rich deadbeat son it would be income to you, no?

Yes. Thankfully though, rich people pay our politicians to raise the ceiling on what is untaxable. Since I come from no money, it's nothing I'll ever need to care about.


"rich people" pay to raise the limit on what is taxable, instead of I don't know paying to put a cap on inheritance taxes? You can't really be stupid enough to believe that.
 
2012-08-30 01:06:45 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.

$10 is a shiat-ton of money?


But we're dealing with percentages here. Let's say she turned $2,000,000 into $20,000,000,000. That's a 20,000x increase. I don't care who you are and what you start off with, if you can get a 20,000x ROI, someone will invest a crapton of money with you!
 
kgf
2012-08-30 01:06:49 PM  
If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socialising, and more time working

This is the basic underlying premise of the American Lie. The truth is hard work alone will not make most people wealthy. It takes extraordinary luck and connections. For every poor-guy-made-it-big story there are 100,000 poor-guy-is-still-poor stories.
 
2012-08-30 01:07:52 PM  

BgJonson79: signaljammer: Bill Gates grew up in one of two communities, as I did in the other, that made computers available to students at the time. His father was a patent attorney who was able to keep Microsoft private up to the 286 gen on his own dime. His mother was on the board of the Red Cross along with the president of IBM, so he got the contract for the PC OS. Sweat of his brow.

What you're saying, then, is that his parents aren't idiots. Weird how that works out. Smart kids have smart parents.


He sold MS-DOS to IBM before he owned MS-DOS. He had "connections."
 
2012-08-30 01:08:47 PM  

Heron: Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: dittybopper: TsarTom: ...after parlaying a multi-million dollar inheritance...

The problem isn't that the poor want to be poor. They don't, obviously. It's that they don't generally have the financ ...

It's nothing to do with the long term poor, she is talking about the middle class. The people who do the actual work that makes people like her rich.

She might actually do some work, but that's not where here money comes from, she simply inherited a company which gives her the right to take whatever the employees of the company produce and give them as little as she can get away with.

I have never understood why someone would be able to inherit an organization anyway, like it was a piece of furniture or something. It's almost like the feudal system where nobles inherit a manor and get to take a big share of what the serfs produce, simply because of birth.

Youre looking at it from the wrong angle. Why shouldn't the person who built the organization be able to do whatever he/she wants with it?

If I am smart/lucky/hard working enough to build a business worth $100m/$2m/150k or whatever, why shouldn't I be able to give it to my lazy stupid son? Sure, he didn't do anything to deserve it but I did and want it to go to him.

Because an organization is necessarily a group effort. Why do you get to claim ownership? Because you put down the start-up capital? Did you construct your factories, build all your production, organize the work, oversee it, handle all the sales and advertising? Those people clocking in everyday to ensure your business remains productive and successful have as much, if not a more, of a claim to owning their collective activity than you, the money-man. You don't "own" a corporation any more than you own the employees who do all the work. A corporation employs, produces goods, pays taxes; it is a social entity and as such a more democratic form of management and "ownership" which takes these other concerned parties into consideration is not only morally fairer but also more efficient, as Germany and Japan's heavily unionized and consistently robust manufacturing sectors prove.


Laughable nonsense. I paid all those people to build the factories. They were compensated at a mutually agreeable wage and have no claim to any ownership in the company.

If you pay a contractor to build an addition to your home, do he and all his employees have the right to say they own part of your house? You didn't build it, they did. You just paid for their labor to build it.
 
2012-08-30 01:09:01 PM  

kgf: If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socialising, and more time working

This is the basic underlying premise of the American Lie. The truth is hard work alone will not make most people wealthy. It takes extraordinary luck and connections. For every poor-guy-made-it-big story there are 100,000 poor-guy-is-still-poor stories.


Because most people don't have the talents and ability necessary. It sucks, but it's true.
 
2012-08-30 01:09:51 PM  

impaler: BgJonson79: signaljammer: Bill Gates grew up in one of two communities, as I did in the other, that made computers available to students at the time. His father was a patent attorney who was able to keep Microsoft private up to the 286 gen on his own dime. His mother was on the board of the Red Cross along with the president of IBM, so he got the contract for the PC OS. Sweat of his brow.

What you're saying, then, is that his parents aren't idiots. Weird how that works out. Smart kids have smart parents.

He sold MS-DOS to IBM before he owned MS-DOS. He had "connections."


How many stupid parents have good connections? Or stupid kids?
 
2012-08-30 01:09:58 PM  

BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.


Brain harder. Jesus farking christ.

If you start with a $10 million inheritance at birth and do nothing other than put it in a savings account with 5% interest, by the time you're 30, it will be worth four times as much.

If you put it in the market during the 70s-90s, it would be still more.

If you happened to inherit a mining empire and put the money back into mining, like the ogre from TFA, it would be still more.
 
2012-08-30 01:10:23 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: I have a fantasy in which people are not allowed to graduate high school until they can give a dumbed-down, plain-English explanation of the word "stochastic." People seem very uncomfortable with the idea that although you can skew the odds in your favor, there are just some things in life that are out of your control (or effectively random.)

There is a big difference between "Hard work makes you rich" and "Hard work makes you more likely to get rich."


I wish there was a way to stamp that on some people's brains. Maybe that will be my billion dollar idea?
 
2012-08-30 01:10:43 PM  

Loadmaster: Her point is that hard work is a good thing, and that sloth and living off the dole are bad things. And she's correct.


Also exercise it good, as well as eating healthy.

Other good things include kittens, puppies and rainbows.

Now if she has something to say that people don't already know...
 
2012-08-30 01:11:52 PM  

Jon Snow: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.

Brain harder. Jesus farking christ.

If you start with a $10 million inheritance at birth and do nothing other than put it in a savings account with 5% interest, by the time you're 30, it will be worth four times as much.

If you put it in the market during the 70s-90s, it would be still more.

If you happened to inherit a mining empire and put the money back into mining, like the ogre from TFA, it would be still more.


So, let's say the interest alone makes it worth 20x as much. Isn't that three orders of magnitude LESS than what she turned her investment into?
 
2012-08-30 01:11:54 PM  

BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.

$10 is a shiat-ton of money?

But we're dealing with percentages here. Let's say she turned $2,000,000 into $20,000,000,000. That's a 20,000x increase. I don't care who you are and what you start off with, if you can get a 20,000x ROI, someone will invest a crapton of money with you!


Ever heard the saying "You've gotta have money to make money"?

Not technically true of course, but it's an lot easier to make a lot of money into more than make a lot out of a little.

And we're not talking about percentages (at least I never was). I'm talking about making a lot of money into more money.
 
2012-08-30 01:12:56 PM  

impaler: Loadmaster: Her point is that hard work is a good thing, and that sloth and living off the dole are bad things. And she's correct.

Also exercise it good, as well as eating healthy.

Other good things include kittens, puppies and rainbows.

Now if she has something to say that people don't already know...


Someone with bad genes who exercises a lot will still live less than someone with good genes who doesn't. Some (most) people just lose the genetic (smarts) lottery.
 
2012-08-30 01:13:17 PM  
Must be a Dutch billionaire--he's got enough red herring there to supply the international market.

Although class warfare is often framed by the haves and their evil minions, the conservatives, as a matter of "envy", "jealousy", "laziness", innate stupidity, etc., these ad hominem arguments are feeble.

I don't like the rich, but I love their stuff. I worry that perhaps there would be none of this stuff if there were no rich. That would be a pity because the rich do seem to fill a niche, namely the early adopters of expensive new technology, ideas, lifestyles,e tc.

At least partly, the rich are a Good Thing and I can't deny they play a role in the ecology, just as that mountain lion that ate your precious snowflake last week plays an important role in another ecology.

But do not confuse envy or fear or hatred with a reasoned political, economic, cultural, social and religious animus against the rich.

It is one thing to say that there would be little or no great art if rich patrons, whether individual, family, religious or state, did not exist to sponsor them by paying the poor starving (or well-off, comfortable) artists enough to buy materials and eat while spending ten years on a single painting. It is another to say that anything goes and that we should leave leadership in all things to the rich.

Recently an asinine mole and his operator on the SCOTUS destroyed the United States Constitution, liberal democracy and a number of other cherished institutions with a few strokes of a pen. I won't mention any names but one of the felons rhymes with Barence Bowmass and the other has a name that reminds one of LaScalia in Milan.

Giving money the vote is the worst thing you can do to a democracy. Even slavery or a limited suffrage are small potatoes to unleashing oligarchy so that a handful of billionaires can subvert the Constitution and all political powers and decision-making with buckets and pallets of money.

You either have a democracy or an oligarchy. You now have an oligarchy. Democracy may not work all that great, but it is the very best of a very bad lot. Government by the rich is pretty much the worst seeing as it is pretty much all of the other forms of government: aristocracy, oligarchy, monarcny, tyranny, fascism, etc.

You can not fob me off with "oh, people who criticize the oligarchy are just jealous". Even a saint must be horrified by Government of the Rich, by the Rich and for the Rich. In fact, a saint must be MORE horrified than even the most envious person on Earth.

I do not love the rich, but I love their stuff. But this is not the issue. The issue is what kind of government we will have, and thus what kind of freedoms, people, lives, world.

JUST SAY NO TO OLIGARCHY. Say yes to one person, one vote.

Personally I think that the very rich should not be allowed to spend any money buying politicians, laws and government to suit themselves. There should be a cap on personal donations and no corporate donations. This is, in fact, what the Liberals put in place at the Federal level in Canada, much to their own cost, seeing as they were getting more money from the rich than even the Conservatives, who despite being illiberal and anti-democratic at every turn, do get most of their donations in relatively small dollops from farmers, business people and professionals--the middle classes proper.

Liberalism, democracy, equity, peace, order, good government--these are all traditional middle class and Canadian values which I cherish. And Americans have mostly cherished them also, albeit to a lesser extent because all the power and money is in the hands of the top 20% and the rest can go fark themselves.

In Canada, the top 20% mostly believe that the other 80% need our compassion, assistance and respect just as much or more than the rich. Even quite conservative people at least pay lip service to the idea that government and taxation are just fine if they are working to a good purpose. Most of the top 20% say they don't mind paying taxes, although they may be mealy-mouthed lying SOBs for all that.

At various times Canada and the US seem to lap each other in the race to the top (or the bottom) of the democratic, liberal, free, and happy leagues.

The Citizens United decision was the worst political decision in the history of America and possibly the world. The SOBs responsible (Barence Bowmass and LaScalia of Milan) should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on an electrified rail, sharpened to a very fine stainless steel edge.

But that doesn't mean that I am jealous of Donald Trump's truly grotesque Philistine taste in gold-plated ceilings or wish I had both salt and fresh water infinity pools all the way from the Pacific beach to the Atlantic shore. I might very well be envious, jealous, hateful, or what not, but that has nothing to do with my main animus against the rich, which is that the feckers are not to be trusted and are natural-born enemies of everything I value and esteem, including the things I can not have, or do, or be.
 
2012-08-30 01:14:01 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lionel Mandrake: Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

So you're the Nigerian Prince?!


Sure. Send me a bunch of money and I'll be whatever you want, baby.

/not gay, but money is money
 
2012-08-30 01:14:18 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I dont care what you say about this lady she was handed she built on it. She is a success.

Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

Thousands of times as much? Cause I'll send $10 right now if you can turn it into $30k.

$10 is a shiat-ton of money?

But we're dealing with percentages here. Let's say she turned $2,000,000 into $20,000,000,000. That's a 20,000x increase. I don't care who you are and what you start off with, if you can get a 20,000x ROI, someone will invest a crapton of money with you!

Ever heard the saying "You've gotta have money to make money"?

Not technically true of course, but it's an lot easier to make a lot of money into more than make a lot out of a little.

And we're not talking about percentages (at least I never was). I'm talking about making a lot of money into more money.


Oh, I usually work with percentages when doing that kind of comparison because it's the only one that makes logical sense to me. Like a developing economy's GDP percent increase is always more than the US because they're starting with so much less.
 
2012-08-30 01:16:05 PM  

BgJonson79: So, let's say the interest alone makes it worth 20x as much. Isn't that three orders of magnitude LESS than what she turned her investment into?


What is your evidence that she did anything other than sit on her share of the empire she inherited and just let her accountants roll any interest/dividends/profits back over?

What is your evidence that she did anything herself, that required either intelligence, hard work, or any other positive attribute other than her birth, that her increase in wealth came from something other than the increase in value in the empire she inherited due to external forces?
 
2012-08-30 01:16:58 PM  
img339.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-30 01:17:36 PM  

Jon Snow: BgJonson79: So, let's say the interest alone makes it worth 20x as much. Isn't that three orders of magnitude LESS than what she turned her investment into?

What is your evidence that she did anything other than sit on her share of the empire she inherited and just let her accountants roll any interest/dividends/profits back over?

What is your evidence that she did anything herself, that required either intelligence, hard work, or any other positive attribute other than her birth, that her increase in wealth came from something other than the increase in value in the empire she inherited due to external forces?


Because she made 20,000x more money than what she started off with. If I could turn $10 into $200k I would, and I bet you would too ;-) (If I'm putting words into your mouth, I apologize.)

How many stupid, lazy people can get a 20,000x ROI?
 
2012-08-30 01:18:17 PM  
Or arm yourself to the teeth and take it from billionaires.
 
2012-08-30 01:18:22 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lionel Mandrake: Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.

So you're the Nigerian Prince?!

Sure. Send me a bunch of money and I'll be whatever you want, baby.

/not gay, but money is money


Like I've always said, I'm a whore, I just not a cheap whore
 
2012-08-30 01:18:37 PM  
Where are there so many posts? This thread was done in one.
 
2012-08-30 01:19:38 PM  

BgJonson79: Oh, I usually work with percentages when doing that kind of comparison because it's the only one that makes logical sense to me.


OK. When I talk about a lot of money, I usually mean a lot of money, because that's the only way that makes logical sense to me.
 
2012-08-30 01:23:44 PM  

Jon Snow: If you happened to inherit a mining empire and put the money back into mining, like the ogre from TFA, it would be still more.


Wow.

I assumed she at least made a new business out of her inheritance. Nope. She just got the inheritance and took over the same business.
 
2012-08-30 01:25:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Oh, I usually work with percentages when doing that kind of comparison because it's the only one that makes logical sense to me.

OK. When I talk about a lot of money, I usually mean a lot of money, because that's the only way that makes logical sense to me.


So if I sent you $1 million, you could get me $20 billion?
 
2012-08-30 01:25:42 PM  

BgJonson79: Jon Snow: BgJonson79: So, let's say the interest alone makes it worth 20x as much. Isn't that three orders of magnitude LESS than what she turned her investment into?

What is your evidence that she did anything other than sit on her share of the empire she inherited and just let her accountants roll any interest/dividends/profits back over?

What is your evidence that she did anything herself, that required either intelligence, hard work, or any other positive attribute other than her birth, that her increase in wealth came from something other than the increase in value in the empire she inherited due to external forces?

Because she made 20,000x more money than what she started off with. If I could turn $10 into $200k I would, and I bet you would too ;-) (If I'm putting words into your mouth, I apologize.)

How many stupid, lazy people can get a 20,000x ROI?


BTW, gratz on nailing Ygritte IRL, too :-D
 
2012-08-30 01:26:18 PM  
Here's my main problem: the middle class is disappearing.

Most people I know don't want to be rich - they want to make enough to be comfortable and have a good life. House, cars, vacation, and retirement savings are enough for just about everyone I know.

Because the wealthiest of the wealthy are allowed to continually rewrite the financial rules to keep gathering unto themselves, wealth disparity is increasing. If we're not careful, we'll get to the point where you either have everything, or you have nothing.
 
2012-08-30 01:27:09 PM  

Lionel Mandrake:
Give me a shiat-ton of money and I guaran-farkin-tee I'll turn it into more money.


Thats a pretty easy claim to make since you know no-one is actually going to do it.

However, all things considered you probably wouldn't. Even if you are not one of those idiots who blow 20 million dollar lottery wins in 2 years and end up in a cardboard box, chances are you do not actually have the specific financial skills and knowledge to significantly increase your wealth were you given 20 mil. Banking it and living off the interest is smart and safe, but not going to turn it into billions.

Gina studied economics at university and spent a decade learning the mining business from her father. A potent combination you probably dont have a match for.

But lets say you are actually an astute economicist (who doesn't have any money yet) what is your foolproof plan for turning that 20 million into 20 billion that every other sucker with 20 mil hasn't/wouldn't/can't think of and do themselves?
 
2012-08-30 01:27:48 PM  

BgJonson79: Lionel Mandrake: BgJonson79: Oh, I usually work with percentages when doing that kind of comparison because it's the only one that makes logical sense to me.

OK. When I talk about a lot of money, I usually mean a lot of money, because that's the only way that makes logical sense to me.

So if I sent you $1 million, you could get me $20 billion?


When did I ever claim any specific return? I said if I had a lot of money I could make it into more.

Quit asking questions about shiat I never said.
 
2012-08-30 01:28:07 PM  
Just get sterilized already. Maybe $300 for a vasectomy and the rest of your life with be relatively worry-free. You won't have to shell out the $1/2 million or so it takes to raise a kid through college, your life will be a lot less stressful, and you won't have the guilt of forcing a kid into an increasingly fascist society. And, by removing a future working drone from society, you're ultimately depriving the plutocrats of a source of income...
 
2012-08-30 01:30:17 PM  
Well, let's see. At $12.00 an hour, I'd only have to work 83,333,333 hours to become a billionaire. At 40 hours a week that's a mere 40,064 years on the job.
 
2012-08-30 01:32:07 PM  

Greymalkin: But lets say you are actually an astute economicist (who doesn't have any money yet) what is your foolproof plan for turning that 20 million into 20 billion that every other sucker with 20 mil hasn't/wouldn't/can't think of and do themselves?


Please see my earlier response to the other guy that's asking me about things I never said.
 
2012-08-30 01:32:23 PM  

Psycat: Just get sterilized already. Maybe $300 for a vasectomy and the rest of your life with be relatively worry-free. You won't have to shell out the $1/2 million or so it takes to raise a kid through college, your life will be a lot less stressful, and you won't have the guilt of forcing a kid into an increasingly fascist society. And, by removing a future working drone from society, you're ultimately depriving the plutocrats of a source of income...


Not sure where you think $300 vasectomy's come from, but go right ahead and go for that shiat. I'm sure it'll turn out great!
 
2012-08-30 01:33:41 PM  

plcow: The only thing that is assured is that if you play on Fark, or Skyrim, or get high all day is that you will NEVER become wealthy.


That, and that you'll be penniless farking worm food in 70 years.
 
2012-08-30 01:33:55 PM  
If this biatch had never been born there would be no difference to the outcome of her industry.
 
Displayed 50 of 440 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report