Money

[goodyhi11]

recently i realized things are not fair sometimes, like things in life. for instance, a rich person have lots of money so they can purchase a car, but they might not needed. On the other hand a person doesn't have much money, but they may need a card badly, and they can't afford it.

 

Can anyone tell me why this phenomona so common?

[Lance]

Because some people were taught skills or had parents that had the skills to make money.

 

Other people where taught at some point in their life that success is based purely on luck and thus would rather blame society for their crummy car.

[LucidDreamer]

First of all, unequal distribution of resources is a fundamental truth of the universe. Gaze out in any direction and you will find pockets of stars, planets, mass, and energy in some locations and the complete absence of these things in other spots. The same is true for the earth; some places get more sunshine, wind, and water than others. The organisms that are able inhabit locations that are abundant in resources thrive, while those that are banished to poorer locations starve. This ownership of resources is often inherited by the organism’s descendants.

 

Humans are creatures of the earth and therefore some humans will have more wealth than others. Early humans fought over resource-rich land because of its ability to provide a better life. Areas with abundant game wildlife, lots of edible vegetation, and fresh streams allowed its inhabitants greater chances to survive and raise more children. Those that lost the war for the choice land were forced to subsist or possibly die off in harsh environments.

 

This battle for resources has been going on since the times that we lived like our chimpanzee cousins and it goes on today. Much of the wealth of the world is situated on coastland that encircles rich farmland. Pockets of wealth can be found in areas that contain rare valuable resources like oil, diamonds, or rich culture.

 

The current distribution of wealth is a result of our ancestor’s battle for resources. The Europeans are wealthy because of several lucky factors including: being exposed to Roman and Arabic cultures, the invention of the printing press, good farmland and natural resources, and the wealth brought over from the Americas. The Americans are wealthy because they were victorious after the World Wars and their country did not experience the destruction that the rest of Europe did, and democracy of course. As lance has mentioned, your wealth is also dependant on your parents and their parent's ability to acquire wealth within their situation.

 

There are also social reasons. I believe mankind needs some unequal distribution of resources to encourage him to work hard. If everyone was given equal amounts of wealth regardless of any kind of ability or hard work then few people would work as hard as they do because they would have less motivation.

 

Also, human civilization, and his society, is still in its infancy. We cannot keep up with our expanding population and constantly changing world. We have barely managed to keep from blowing ourselves up, so properly taking care of the poorer groups of mankind is still beyond our capability.

 

Think on this: Half of the human beings that have ever existed are alive today. It takes time for man to learn and adapt. We are not socially ready to deal with the world that our technology has created.

[ku]

Whether inequality is common depends on the government. Some governments redistribute wealth from rich to poor moreso than others, for example Belgium versus the USA. You can look at Gini indexes for different countries to see this.

 

But even if you have inequality within countries reducing owing to government intervention, you may still have inequality between countries. For example, Japan has much higher living standards than Rwanda. Is inequality in the world increasing? In terms of countries, yes, but in terms of population, no. If countries like China and India, countries with massive populations, are weighted more than countries with smaller populations, then what you find is that because of rapid economic growth in India and China (about 7% and 9% GDP growth respectively) then the poor are catching up with the rich. However, this hides sluggish economic growth in Africa, excluding South Africa and Botswana.

 

Back to the original within-country analysis...if inequality is high within a country, that is because of the government.

 

Why is there inequality? I'm not too sure about this but maybe it's due to compounding. Money begets money. If a millionaire puts his one million dollars into a business and if a poor person only puts $100 into that same business, the millionaire will get much more from this investment because he puts more in to start with. Richer people have leverage.

[goodyhi11]

Then what caused the inequality distribution of wealth?

[LucidDreamer]

Then what caused the inequality distribution of wealth?

Did you read my post? The inequality is caused by:

 

1) Location. Some countries are richer in resources than others.

2) Government. Some forms of government distribute the wealth more evenly

3) Culture. Some people's cultures are better at generating wealth.

4) Past. Some countries are rich because in the past they conquered rich nations or created a new industry.

 

Individuals are rich because:

1) Luck. Somebody or one of their descendants was standing in the right place at the right time

2) Ability. Somebody or one of their descendants had incredible skill at making money.

3) Race/Sex People are treated differently based on their race and sex and are given different opportunities.

4) Culture Some peoples cultures encourage ambition more than others.

[Lance]

Individuals are rich because:

1) Luck. Somebody or one of their descendants was standing in the right place at the right time

2) Ability. Somebody or one of their descendants had incredible skill at making money.

3) Race/Sex People are treated differently based on their race and sex and are given different opportunities.

4) Culture Some peoples cultures encourage ambition more than others.

 

You don't honestly think that luck comes before ability do you? There is a reason that the lazy rarely get rich, I assure you. This is assuming you were not born rich in which case your parents were not lazy. Either way its not luck. You don't think Howard Hughes just got lucky do you?

[PhDP]

Can you prove that most rich peoples are rich because of their skill and not because they were at the good place at the good time ? And I'm not asking for a list of people, I don't care about Howard Hughes or other fallacious anecdotal evidence.

 

You say people claim luck is important to justify their laziness ? I believe people claim "ability" is important to justify unacceptable nequalities. The fact is, if you have 200 000$ a year, what's the importance of your last 50 000$ ? You will have a bigger car, a bigger house with that money, while some people are barely able to survive with their salary, and you justify that injustice by claiming it's their fault ?

[Lance]

Can you prove that most rich peoples are rich because of their skill and not because they were at the good place at the good time ? And I'm not asking for a list of people' date=' I don't care about Howard Hughes or other fallacious anecdotal evidence.

 

You say people claim luck is important to justify their laziness ? I believe people claim "ability" is important to justify unacceptable nequalities. The fact is, if you have 200 000$ a year, what's the importance of your last 50 000$ ? You will have a bigger car, a bigger house with that money, while some people are barely able to survive with their salary, and you justify that injustice by claiming it's their fault ?[/quote']

Please don't ask me to disprove something you can't prove.

 

Whats the IMPORTANCE? The fact is, that is NOT your money and you are NOT entitled to anybody else money simply because they have more than you. If my neighbor has two computers and I have zero does that mean I have the right to take his computer? What if he has three? When do I or the government get the right to take his computer?

[PhDP]

Please don't ask me to disprove something you can't prove.

 

I ask you to prove "luck" wasn't an important factor, I don't ask you to disprove something I said, I didn't say "luck" was more or less important than "ability". I'm just sceptical of the claim that poor people are lazy and rich people are hard working. However, I see how practical it is to justify a lack of empathy or generosity.

 

Whats the IMPORTANCE? The fact is, that is NOT your money and you are NOT entitled to anybody else money simply because they have more than you. If my neighbor has two computers and I have zero does that mean I have the right to take his computer? What if he has three? When do I or the government get the right to take his computer?

 

How many people are dying because they don't have a computer ? Comparing computers with basic need is complete nonsense. I'm not saying we should all have the same salary, but it's just incredible how much money some people have (and it's far from always being proportionate with their contribution to society) while some cannot pay for a good education for their kids. Nobody need millions to survive, to live a descent live, some people really need that money for their basic need. Redistribution is essential to a certain social justice.

 

About "rights", I don't care about rights that are harming human life and I don't give a damn that some people think the government has no right to raise taxes, a society should do everything so everyone could get food, education, health care, a place to live, et cetera...

[LucidDreamer]

You don't honestly think that luck comes before ability do you? There is a reason that the lazy rarely get rich, I assure you. This is assuming you were not born rich in which case your parents were not lazy. Either way its not luck. You don't think Howard Hughes just got lucky do you?

I wasn't really placing them in a particular order of importance, just numbering them to make it easy to read. . Some people do get lucky; I certainly don't think that the lottery winners have greater ability than the average person.

 

Also, imagine two people of equal ability where one grows up in a very privileged household while the other grows up in the slums. You could consider your ancestry a matter of luck.

 

You seem to be thinking that there are two classes of people in this world; the go-getters who become rich and the lazy people who are poor. There are many kinds of people in this world and some of them are quite motivated yet they are not rich.

 

Imagine a very talented and hard-working person who decides to devote himself to what he loves, a poker career. He is semi-pro and sells poker supplies on the internet. He works extremely hard and earns a middle class income. The current poker craze comes along and the guy becomes rich. Because there was a poker craze there wasn't another kind of fad. There are millions of people out there who are in position to become rich if what they have devoted themselves to becomes popular or the new fad. That's a matter of luck as well.

 

But I'm not really commenting on which one is more important. I think your belief that the only way to become rich is to earn it by working hard and is a good attitude. But you must realize that most of the world is poor not because of ability but because of chance. People in India and China are educated and work like maniacs, yet they are poor by our standards (not as much anymore in China). Those people are not where they are because they are stupid or lazy and neither are the starving people in Africa. If you can understand why their environment can have an impact on their finances then you can understand why people's environment has an impact on their wealth in wealthier nations.

[Lance]

Ah well, thats where my values differ. If I was on the side of the road dying I still wouldn't feel entitled to somebody else's food. Why? Because its not mine.

 

Sure, I would be happy to have some food, But I am certainly not entitled to that food.

 

And I never said rich people were hard working and the poor were lazy (although many times this is true). I simply said that to be rich ability comes before luck. You can not be rich without ability, it just doesn't work like that. The people who become rich without ability such as is with the lottery quikly lose that money in a very short amount of time.

 

Come to think of it, of all the rich people I have met, never have I met a lazy rich person.

[Lance]

But I'm not really commenting on which one is more important. I think your belief that the only way to become rich is to earn it by working hard and is a good attitude. But you must realize that most of the world is poor not because of ability but because of chance. People in India and China are educated (not so much anymore in China) and work like maniacs' date=' yet they are poor by our standards. Those people are not where they are because they are stupid or lazy and neither are the starving people in Africa. If you can understand why their environment can have an impact on their finances then you can understand why people's environment has an impact on their wealth in wealthier nations.[/quote']

 

But that's not what I'm saying at all. I just don't think its possible to become rich solely because of luck. If the poker player had not been hard working, lucky or not, he would not be rich right now. What if somebody had told him when he was 6 years old that the only way to get rich was to be lucky? Do you think that 6 year old would grow up with the values he needs to succeed when that opportunity came? I think not!

 

Although it may not be possible to become rich solely because of luck it IS possible to become rich solely because of ability and ambition.

 

Making yourself a victim, hopeless and apathetic insures being poor. And I agree, having ability does not insure money, but you certainly wont get money with the victim mindset. What really makes me sad about this subject is that so many kids in this generation are taught by their parents that having a good life is only luck thereby insuring that wont bother to try and thus destine to fail.

[ydoaPs]

I just don't think its possible to become rich solely because of luck.

*cough*lottery*cough*

[Lance]

*cough*lottery*cough*

 

Will you please read my whole posts before responding to a single line out of context? Thanks.

[LucidDreamer]

\\

Making yourself a victim' date=' hopeless and apathetic insures being poor. And I agree, having ability does not insure money, but you certainly wont get money with the victim mindset. What really makes me sad about this subject is that so many kids in this generation are taught by their parents that having a good life is only luck thereby insuring that wont bother to try and thus destine to fail.[/quote']

I agree with this. It also seems like you just got done reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."

[ydoaPs]

Will you please[/i'] read my whole posts before responding to a single line out of context? Thanks.

it was very much in context. multiple times in that post, you said it was not possible. guess what. it is!

[Lance]

it was very much in context. multiple times in that post, you said it was not possible. guess what. it is!

 

No, it is not. Sure, it may be possible to be awarded a large amount of money in a short amount of time, but that doesn't make you rich. Generally the people who are awarded lottery money operate in a deficiency until they have less money than they started with. Why? Because they didn't have the ability to sustain the wealth.

 

Its like picking a two month old baby up by the shoulders and carrying it for 5 years then suddenly putting it on the ground to try to walk. It just doesn't work. Part of the ability in sustaining the money comes from experience. Although a car may be a great tool, it really isn't so much when its in the hands of a ten-year old because a ten year old simply doesn't have the ability to drive it. Don't get me wrong, a kid may get lucky and find a car with the keys in the ignition but he still doesn't have a car.

[ydoaPs]

No, it is not. Sure, it may be possible to be awarded a large amount of money in a short amount of time, but that doesn't make you rich. Generally the people who are awarded lottery money operate in a deficiency until they have less money than they started with. Why? Because they didn't have the ability to sustain the wealth.

even if one person, used the money wisely and didn't lose it all, you would be wrong. saying something is impossible or cannot happen is an absolute statement. even one counter example makes said statement false.

[Lance]

even if one person, used the money wisely and didn't lose it all, you would be wrong. saying something is impossible or cannot happen is an absolute statement. even one counter example makes said statement false.

 

Because you're speaking of an oxymoron.

 

 

As I have said before, never have I seen a lazy rich person. If this theoretical person you speak of won the lottery and benefited then he had skill and ambition; not sole luck.

[ydoaPs]

once again, you use the "i have never seen a unicycle, so they must not exist" type argument. it takes neither skill nor ambition to open a bank account.

[Lance]

once again, you use the "i have never seen a unicycle, so they must not exist" type argument. it takes neither skill nor ambition to open a bank account.

 

And yet such a huge amount of the population would and does fail in doing that; curious.

[ydoaPs]

as i have said many times before, people, in general, are stupid.

 

and a huge amount of the population dose have a bank account; what's your point?

[Lance]

as i have said many times before' date=' people, in general, are stupid.

 

and a huge amount of the population dose have a bank account; what's your point?[/quote']

 

Because you have pressed me so persistently I will be quite blunt: It is bullshit to think that managing money is neither an ability nor skill when so many people are incapable of it.

[ydoaPs]

Because you have pressed me so persistently I will be quite blunt: It is bullshit to think that managing money is neither an ability nor skill when so many people are incapable of it.

opening a bank account (and balancing it) is about as easy as voting. wait, maybe you are right.