Yes- the "rich" conjures a stereotype which can vary greatly. 1. Yes they do if there is universal conscription unless there are loopholes (buying a sub in our Civil War, etc.). Some may be attracted to a military career.
2. Many wealthy families started out with a high school education- night school- family run businesses, etc. Some may not enjoy the clique of wealth and social climbing. 3. This is too vague. :-) 4. To acquire wealth, most have worked long hours and have engaged in manual labor, as well. 5. Some- maybe most- avoid the vulgarity of politics; others back candidates or a political philosophy; others may serve in the diplomatic corps, etc. Some run for office because they have a calling to do so. Motives matter. 6. The rich do have an edge in being able to keep money apart from taxable income in various ways. Most would invest and expand if the policies are favorable. 7. Americans promoted individualism and shucked off the aristocratic model. The USA government has become the greedy landlord. 8. They are precisely the ones who can afford to take risks- have- do- and will (hopefully). Socialism is like cancer- terminal. On Nov 14, 9:54 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > It would be interesting to know who the rich are. Orwell said > somewhere that propaganda reduced a word to one meaning. We tend to > stereotype. I think this would be about what they do and don't do > rather than naming names. I'd take the following guesses: > > 1. They mostly don't fight in wars. > 2. They get a lot of education in networks not generally available - > both in private schools and elite management of better state > provision. This tend to make education a means to foster lack of > social mobility and part of the continuation of privilege. > 3. A lot of them are to be found in finance and professions that are > the most heavily "unionised" places of restrictive practice. > 4. You won't find them doing hard work (only for fools and horses). > 5. They are the politburo controlling what we call politics. > 6. Criminal money and tax dodging play a big role. > 7. They are linked to ancient landlord rents in modern form. > 8. They don't take risks, but leave the rest of us holding the baby. > > On 14 Nov, 13:25, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Funny. The modern concious self has gotten very talented at avoiding a > > conscience let alone going through a thorough examination, Roman > > Catholic style, but it's been a bonanza for shrinks and do-it-yourself > > writers and advisors to fill the vacuum. And the super rich, as Gabby > > points out, generally try to crack the upper crust- as a source of > > future monetary opportunities, as a justification, as a display, as a > > safety factor. Few realize money has become a product in and of > > itself- like a bonanza crop for a farmer and even fewer complain when > > then are making money (Madoff''s "investors", etc.) > > > On Nov 14, 2:28 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That is true,, I think i misspelled as usual conscious,, you know the > > > thing that nags you when you are doing something wrong.. > > > Allan > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It depends on what you understand by 'social conscious'. The super > > > > rich by necessity have to be 'social conscious' in order to be able to > > > > develop further. You don't need to have 'social conscious' if there is > > > > nothing that you can do to participate in the given richness. > > > > > 2012/11/14 Allan H <[email protected]>: > > > >> It is the super rich that filled their pockets from the world's debt. > > > >> From > > > >> the looks of things there is a form or lack of social conscious > > > >> that is lacking. > > > > >> Allan > > > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > > >> On Nov 13, 2012 8:50 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> There is hardly anything more important to thriving functioning > > > >>> capitalism than productivity, and sharing the fruits of productivity. > > > >>> It is notable that productivity among U.S. workers actually > > > >>> skyrocketed over the last decade and a half, but real wages have > > > >>> flattened or declined. > > > >>> Where did the surpluses go? To parasitic financializers who have seen > > > >>> their share over all corporate profits grow from 10% to over 45% in > > > >>> recent decades. > > > >>> After costing trillions and wiping out the world economy, what asset, > > > >>> good, or service do big banks produce that has genuine public worth? > > > > >>> • “Expert advice”, in which brokers intentionally sell junk to > > > >>> consumers, as shown in investment bank emails? > > > >>> • “Financial services”, which turn out to be so laden with hidden fees > > > >>> and loosened/fabricated credit qualifications that the lendee is worse > > > >>> off? > > > >>> • Allegiances that concentrate financial wealth the top 0.1% of the > > > >>> population, causing the vast majority of the world to get poorer? > > > > >>> If anything, citizens would stand to gain more by paying big banks to > > > >>> close their doors. > > > > >>> Big banks have largely stopped lending to businesses or individuals > > > >>> because that’s not profitable enough and because they need to retain > > > >>> capital to reduce their exposure due to their own foolish > > > >>> overleveraging. This depresses community and small business > > > >>> entrepreneurship and productivity. > > > > >>> Bottom line: Big banks’ “services” take far more in costs than they > > > >>> provide in benefits. Much would be gained, and little lost, if they > > > >>> were allowed to fail or were decommissioned outright for their > > > >>> criminal behavior. > > > > >>> The bail outs could have been given to individuals and families > > > >>> instead of the banks - we would probably have been looking at $120,000 > > > >>> a family. > > > > >>> It's not the roar of the crowd rigsy - we might call that socially > > > >>> approved epistemic authority. It's about forming decent culture and > > > >>> that we are less individual than we are made to think. Ask people if > > > >>> they have a figure on what the TARP and the rest have cost each one of > > > >>> us - you'll generally come up dry. If people struggle even with > > > >>> basics like this what chance complex schemes of internal training? > > > > >>> On 13 Nov, 19:28, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > The US has lots of problems it does not want to admit to.. There is > > > >>> > one > > > >>> > extremely dangerous quake off the northwest coast .. that will > > > >>> > happen > > > >>> > more sooner than later. > > > >>> > Allan > > > > >>> > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > >>> > On Nov 13, 2012 1:59 PM, "rigsy03" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > You seem to see morality as a group thing rather than an > > > >>> > > individual > > > >>> > > struggle between good and evil- which is a religious/spiritual > > > >>> > > matter. > > > >>> > > As for individualism, it is a necessary tension against "the roar > > > >>> > > of > > > >>> > > the crowd". There are too many examples to list. > > > > >>> > > On Nov 12, 9:49 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > Even one person one vote isn't it on its own. Majorities are > > > >>> > > > manipulable and often wrong. If you look at an issue like > > > >>> > > > abortion > > > >>> > > > - > > > >>> > > > which I think should be available and also avoided by better > > > >>> > > > sexual > > > >>> > > > practice - there might be a majority against for all sorts of > > > >>> > > > superstitious reasons. The US relies on Roe v Wade rather than > > > >>> > > > statute. For all the romanticism of Irish republicanism, they > > > >>> > > > leave > > > >>> > > > a > > > >>> > > > young, raped girl to 'her fate'. I believe there comes a time > > > >>> > > > when > > > >>> > > > we > > > >>> > > > should have help to slip from the mortal coil but one can > > > >>> > > > immediately > > > >>> > > > see problems. Molly talks of embracing pardoxes - but much of > > > >>> > > > the > > > >>> > > > difficulty concerns cultural ideologies based in the > > > >>> > > > manipulation of > > > >>> > > > ignorance. Any half-wit should be able to grasp that the > > > >>> > > > treatment > > > >>> > > > of > > > >>> > > > wages as a cost to be hammered down is inconsistent with a > > > >>> > > > developed > > > >>> > > > economy and genuinely available opportunity for most. Yet our > > > >>> > > > politics treats the dominant ideology of a race to the bottom on > > > >>> > > > wages > > > >>> > > > as as taken as read as any Soviet claptrap. Worker unions are > > > >>> > > > to be > > > >>> > > > detested, yet managers, owners and professionals are more > > > >>> > > > unionised > > > >>> > > > than any set of mine workers in history. > > > > >>> > > > Science more or less accepts we are good and evil and that the > > > >>> > > > unit > > > >>> > > > that promotes good behaviour is the social. Virtue ethics > > > >>> > > > arise in > > > >>> > > > writing within an unchallenged slave economy - I don't want to > > > >>> > > > be > > > >>> > > > 'pure' and live off the backs of others (though inevitably as I > > > >>> > > > grow > > > >>> > > > creaky I do). I'm sick of phrases like 'flexible employment' > > > >>> > > > that > > > >>> > > > mean a return of 'you, you and not you' casual labour and > > > >>> > > > managerial > > > >>> > > > abuse in a unitary framework of the employment relationship. > > > >>> > > > Disgusted would be a more accurate term - much morality comes > > > >>> > > > with > > > >>> > > > that feeling (scientifically). > > > > >>> > > > The story of what is happening in America and the imposition of > > > >>> > > > 'individualist' ideology (a bad joke when one looks at the lack > > > >>> > > > of > > > >>> > > > it > > > >>> > > > in American Football) has been long told. When are we > > > >>> > > > individual > > > >>> > > > and > > > >>> > > > when are we selfish prats? You look very individual when you > > > >>> > > > step > > > >>> > > > the > > > >>> > > > big forward, stiff the sweeper, dummy the fullback and dive > > > >>> > > > over the > > > >>> > > > line. Try doing that without the guy who gave the precision > > > >>> > > > pass, > > > >>> > > > the > > > >>> > > > guys running interference and all the attrition that knackered > > > >>> > > > the > > > >>> > > > big > > > >>> > > > forward giving you the edge. > > > > >>> > > > My grandson has just had a small knee operation free at point of > > > >>> > > > delivery. The hospital had a room with Xbox (all donated). We > > > >>> > > > get > > > >>> > > > some stuff right. Must go to collect him. > > > > >>> > > > On 12 Nov, 09:20, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > I think it is it should be one person one vote,, and the > > > >>> > > > > corporate > > > >>> > > > > wallet closed completely and with a maximum amount that can > > > >>> > > > > be > > > >>> > > > > donated (nation wide ) with no exception,, > > > > >>> > > > > effectively the excessively rich and companies and the > > > >>> > > > > companies.. > > > >>> > > > > The super pacs need to be forced to revel all donors and the > > > >>> > > > > amount > > > >>> > > > > they donated.. and that is a minimum these organizations > > > >>> > > > > should > > > >>> > > > > be > > > >>> > > > > totally removed. the Pacs as a republican invention and they > > > >>> > > > > need > > > >>> > > > > to > > > >>> > > > > be brought into control. > > > > >>> > > > > the US has created a political money quagmire.. > > > >>> > > > > Allan > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:48 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
