It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Myth That Success Is Unearned

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And we're letting people with wealth get away with "murder."

Telling someone they cannot commit murder is limiting what they can do with a gun. They also can't shoot it in public willy nilly, shoot you in the arm, go hunting off season or even on season without a permit, ect.

A gun may be a person's property but they can't just do whatever they want with it. Misuse a gun and it can become no longer your property.

I think we once had a better handle on controlling how money could be or could not be used, but currently, the laws are not enforced, have been neutered, or outright removed and replaced with laws that make using money to harm others easier rather than protecting people from it's misuse.

I disagree with the idea you can by owning something use it for whatever you want. There are plenty of laws for what you can and cannot do with what you own. Wealth has gotten out of control, and we need to leash it again.




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Money is very different from a gun. Its not just a tool. Its a necessary device for survival even within the protection of society. It needs rules to protect the population because a single individual can aquire enough wealth to manipulate entire markets and the value of currency.

So yeah you cant say what people can do, but you can say wha they cant do. Just like with a gun in that respect.

Just philosophicaly not legally,..do you think its ok to buy enough resources to manipulate society with their wealth? Do you think that issue should be examined?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thats a different issue from say the Rothchilds buying up a majority of gold holdings and manipulating gold prices by limiting or increasing production, which allpwed them to manipulate currency prices to continue the growth of their wealth.

I believe in the market, but it needs oversight and evolutionary responses to problems that emerge with oligarchies.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


So yeah you cant say what people can do, but you can say wha they cant do. Just like with a gun in that respect.


That's kind of the same difference.

You can spend on anything you want, but that. (what you can do)

You can spend on anything you want, but that. (what you can't do)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So in your mind its admirable to become pablo Escobar and we shouldnt try and stop the way someone like that spends money.

Or we should sell our entire copper reserves to one billionaire so he can manipulate the entire electronics and metal market?

No you make laws about what you can buy.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That's different than saying what you can and can't do with the money though. Splitting hairs, but you are ruling out certain things from the economy. Instead of making those things part of the economy and then telling someone how they must spend.

It's the difference between Obamacare mandates and methamphetamines.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
growing up in hollywood ive seen more than plenty example wise of success goibg to those who didnt earn it.

Also, what about trust fund twerps



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ok as long as we are on that same page.

Because many (not all) of those very wealthy 1 percent people did so by removing morality which is the same as cheating.

Now wealthy people doesnt mean 1 percenters. Just people living well below their means with plenty to continue doing so.

I used to laugh when i had 300 bucks in the bank and a beat up used work truck I was wealthier than most of the country because i had zero debt.
edit on 17-9-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The law does not replace morality. Breaking the law is just another facet of lack of morality.

We did a big disservice to ourselves as a society when we decided that we could be our own gods and God didn't matter (in any form).



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also, what about trust fund twerps


Would you be happy with the government dictating what you can give to your child?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well to be fair we were the first major secular society and were able to overcome some serious problems. So you could say the opposite as well. Our forefathers were not very religious and the protection of religion was a personal liberty right.

We did make a mistake avoiding discussing ethics and morality from any standpoint at all. Whether theology or philosphy it needs to be discussed.

Personall I am a Jefferson guy. The respect I have fpr the bible doesnt come from any superstions there in or fear of god, it comes from the chapters of philosophy in it. Atheists can learn right and wrong from any available material as well, maybe spinoza, Kant, Plato whoever. The point is lets talk about it.

It aint cool to make an epipen 1000 dollars because you are holding someones life hostage and artificiay creating a high price because of pattents and the serious need.

Healthcare is another area that needs extemely clear and enforced regulations.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Its got nothing to do with your post. Its simply an example of undeserved or earned success and wealth.

Im a do nothing bratt and suddenly someone hands me a few million dollars. id say thats undeserved and unearned.

Its totally the parent right. Still doesnt remove the fact a do nothing bratt just got a bunch of undeserved unearned success.

What about nepotisim. Thats the business model and power structure of most of the entertainment industry. I see tons of unearned success right there.

Ive literally sat on phone calls where entertainment execs decide to give a job to some producets nephew as a favor and literally say. " The other applicant is better in every catagory, but we stick together, give the job to the useless bratt"
edit on 17-9-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
I agree, undeserved and unearned. It sucks and it's unfair.

A child born in 3rd world country may think similarly about your position.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Its got nothing to do with your post. Its simply an example of undeserved or earned success and wealth.

Im a do nothing bratt and suddenly someone hands me a few million dollars. id say thats undeserved and unearned.

Its totally the parent right. Still doesnt remove the fact a do nothing bratt just got a bunch of undeserved unearned success.

What about nepotisim. Thats the business model and power structure of most of the entertainment industry. I see tons of unearned success right there.

Ive literally sat on phone calls where entertainment execs decide to give a job to some producets nephew as a favor and literally say. " The other applicant is better in every catagory, but we stick together, give the job to the useless bratt"


That very thing got me out of film scoring. I saw the check from a guest "singer" on a chart I wrote and it was triple my compositional stipend. This wasnt a know singer just someones daughter.
edit on 17-9-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You do understand that clear and enforced regulations are part of the problem? I am not talking about no regulation, but every regulation you add adds paperwork and inspections and oversight. My husband's area where he works deals in compliance with regulatory. It is one area of the company that has grown exponentially - the one the pushes that paperwork. It is not a production area. All it does is make sure all the right documents proving all the right procedures were followed go to all the right agencies watchdogging that.

All those headcount come at the expense of actual productive labor jobs. You know producing goods for people to consume. IN this case, goods that defend the safety and health of the food supply.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well i said good clear regulations. I didnt say over regulating or regulation on top of regulation.

You do realize without regulations children were working in coal mines, lake erie caught fire, and autoworkers were gettimg maimed in machinery right?

Same goes for people with enough money who can be proven in a trial to be manipulating the market. Define those things clearly.

Of coarse this would all be moot if the legal system worled and i could sue monsanto for destroying my water but it hardly ever works for the little guy.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: intrptr
A measure of ones worth is not determined by how much money and stuff they have.

Rather, how we behave towards others.

But that's not what this is about.

You can be the nicest person in the world, but if you cannot perform at your job, you are not worth what you are being paid.

Thats the worlds version of worth. The only thing you are taking out of here is you. How worthy are you to outlive your 'worth'?

If you own a business, you don't hire a 'nice guy' to do your accounting if you need an accountant. You hire an accountant.

Business owners need to feed their families too.

Well yah. I was addressing what people are really worth.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: SprocketUK




When you allow small numbers of people to stash away billions of dollars in trust funds and suchlike it means that there is less liquid money out there in the economy for everyone to chase. At some point, people realise that carrot is getting smaller and further away and they give up reaching for it.


What would have us do? Force people to spend money they earned . . . that doesn't sound right. Not everyone wants to spend their money as they earn it, and some spend it more wisely than others.


And the ones who spend their money most wisely are the ones who tend to become wealthy. And then they become hated for their wisdom.

What a lot of people don't get is that no one really has giant vaults of hoarded wealth like Scrooge McDuck. In order to have money and a continuous flow of it, you have to use the money you have wisely.

For those of us on the bottom, we scramble to get the capital together to break into that tier where wealth can create wealth, so we never really understand this, and it's why when one of us wins the lottery, we often end up squandering that wealth and becoming miserable rather than making it.


How are there families like the Vanderbilts, Rothchilds, Rockefellors, Hiltons, Waltons, etc? Some of those people woukd have trouble spending their cut of their ancestors money.


Bankers are part of the money creation scheme. While other have to work for bankers money, bankers create it out of thin air. All money is bankers money and nobody is really owning it since it is not a real asset when the bankers can create however much money they want by pressing keys. If the bankers wanted it they could create so much money that 1billion dollars would be worth 1 dollar tomorrow and all except bankers would have enough money to survive while all other except them would not own anything of worth at all.

George Soros
Warren Buffett
Easy to become a success when you have the ability to get money thru connections before the rest of the world have notice there is more money in the system and inflation kicks in. You cannot lose when you have the banksters abilities.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No they bribe the right politicians take over how currency is created and then they own the creation of money and can slowly take everything of value from the fools who are using their currency.



Funny that US had a revolution to get away from the banksters and then they only had to bribe the right politicians to get control again thru FED.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

You do realize without regulations children were working in coal mines, lake erie caught fire, and autoworkers were gettimg maimed in machinery right?


For every regulation, you also create unintended consequences. Most of these are poorly understood because most people do not think beyond the "If A, then B" model of thought. Very seldom does it ever stop there. Usually B also leads to C, D, E, and F. And these also create their own problems within the system.

Usually, people who are limited in the A/B mode then see those new problems as unrelated and demand now solutions to new problems when the original cause was their own meddling in the first place.

In short, nothing happens in a vacuum, but a lot of people persist in thinking it does and this leads to an overly layered system that leads to what we have today.

I recommend a book called Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell and follow that by Economic Facts and Fallacies by the same.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join