Poor rich people

[nomadologist]

I'd say that markets are part of society (a subsystem).

The structure of markets is coupled with rest of society, but markets (like politics, religion, science ...) have achieve a substantial degree of autonomy and self-reference.

I would say that markets are a byproduct of society.

 

[Guybrush]

it would be interesting to see how this compares to scandinavia and if admittance to good schools is more competitive assuming it's easier for poorer people to study

I would like to give a more exhaustive answer at a later time, but anyway. We don’t have anything resembling the Ivy League in Sweden. Broadly speaking, the emphasis is on what you have studied rather than where you have studied. That’s a pretty steep generalisation, though: some universities are more prestigious in their respective fields (Stockholm School of Economics for degrees in economics, for example). The downside with the what-rather-than-where mentality, however, is that degrees in the humanities, say, aren’t really valued the way they are in a country such as the U.K. (Sacha Baron Cohen’s getting hired by Goldman Sachs with a mere degree in history would be unthinkable in Sweden, a Cambridge graduate or not). I think I read somewhere that we are amongst the countries in the world with the largest percentage of youngish people enrolled at college or university. I will try to dig up the figures.

 

[Guybrush]

Now this is one odd theory:

A historian says class-based natural selection caused the Industrial Revolution. Theory: 1) In pre-industrial England, wills show "the rich had more surviving children than the poor." 2) "The poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations." Therefore, 3) "The modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages." As a result, 4) "Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work" replaced "spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving" behaviors. 5) This, in turn, reduced violence and increased literacy, work hours, savings, and productivity. 6) This transition "may lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality." 7) China and Japan lagged England because "their richer classes … were surprisingly unfertile." Implication: Today's poor countries lag economically because they haven't endured the same selective pressures. Objections: 1) The genetic part of the theory is speculative. 2) The cultural part is classist. 3) The whole thing is racist. Rebuttal: OK, but … is it true?

 

[Mr. Tea]

"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work" replaced "spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving" behaviors.

OK, this guy clearly hasn't spent much time in Britain lately, has he?

 

[Eric]

>OK, but … is it true?

No.

 

[swears]

.







http://www.theonion.com/content/news/minimum_wage_hike_celebrated_with

 

[worrior]

During the end of this festive season please pay a thought for the poor and needy…

http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2007/12/london_new_poor

The article continues (not online):

‘We eat at the best restaurants and just bought a big vacation home. But, in the new London we’re ‘comfortably’ poor.’

 

[Mr. Tea]

‘We eat at the best restaurants and just bought a big vacation home. But, in the new London we’re ‘comfortably’ poor.’

Shit, wish I was that 'poor'!

 

[luka]

the nice thing about this thread is that vimonthy is an amiable stoner whose only ambition in life is to make enough momey to keep him in skunk and guinness while nomadologist is in the employ of babylon manufact5uring propaganda for big pharma and seems to be mainly concerend with telling everyone a)how much money s/he earns and b) telling everyone how big her/his IQ is....

makes me laugh

 

[swears]

Judge the argument, not the person.

 

[noel emits]

And swears has gone all Cold Rationalist recently.

 

[gek-opel]

Judge the argument, not the person.

Amen. Let us do away with tired psychologism, and attempts at amiable faciality. All hail the cold rationalist dawn.

 

[noel emits]

Of course there's a lot to be said for rationality. But, the ostensible surface 'meaning' of what someone 'says' is not the totality of their action. It ain't what you do... If I see someone operating in the world in a positive and enlightening way I have also to infer that they might be doing something right, even if their 'words' appear wrong-headed. Conversely some of the most avowedly 'progressive', 'politically aware' people can be total twonks whose every action only serves to cause grief and conflict.

Sometimes real rationality negates itself.

 

[gek-opel]

Nah its really about message board interaction-- do you judge someone as a person or as a conglomeration of arguments at a given juncture? Do you build up fro what they say into a map of what their personality is like? Is that accurate at all? If not is it better to judge them on what they argue? Is that even possible?

 

[gek-opel]

Nah its really about message board interaction-- do you judge someone as a person or as a conglomeration of arguments at a given juncture? Do you build up fro what they say into a map of what their personality is like? Is that accurate at all? If not is it better to judge them on what they argue? Is that even possible?

 

[noel emits]

Nah its really about message board interaction-- do you judge someone as a person or as a conglomeration of arguments at a given juncture? Do you build up fro what they say into a map of what their personality is like? Is that accurate at all? If not is it better to judge them on what they argue? Is that even possible?

You just need to know which it is you are doing, that's the main thing.

For progress in discussion it is helpful to be able to separate the argument from the 'person'. It's complicated though because the argument itself may be a function of other aspects of personality. We've all seen here how attacks on what are claimed to be someone's words are clearly emotionally motivated and aimed at a perceived 'person' behind the screen. The language makes this clear, I don't need to resort to calling 'you' names if I want to strongly disagree with something you say, because it's not 'you' that I have an issue with, unless the 'you' stands in for the virtual construction of your self on a message board. That's silly though, I prefer to grant that people can and often should change, otherwise what's the point.
It's ridiculous to judge someone harshly for changing their point of view for instance.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Thing is, when you're dealing with pure text (i.e. information like tone-of-voice and body language is unavailable), what you say and how you say it are one and the same thing. I mean, it can be impossible to disentangle what someone is saying from the way they're saying it, whereas in face-to-face speech you have non-verbal clues to go by.

 

[gek-opel]

You just need to know which it is you are doing, that's the main thing.

For progress in discussion it is helpful to be able to separate the argument from the 'person'. It's complicated though because the argument itself may be a function of other aspects of personality. We've all seen here how attacks on what are claimed to be someone's words are clearly emotionally motivated and aimed at a perceived 'person' behind the screen. The language makes this clear, I don't need to resort to calling 'you' names if I want to strongly disagree with something you say, because it's not 'you' that I have an issue with, unless the 'you' stands in for the virtual construction of your self on a message board. That's silly though, I prefer to grant that people can and often should change, otherwise what's the point.
It's ridiculous to judge someone harshly for changing their point of view for instance.

Definitely agree- I see nothing wrong with changing my view. Its a weakness to defend to the death a standpoint once it has become irrevocably weakened.

But that is another issue to personalizing discussion. My view is that personalization is to be resisted, but is inevitable. After reading enough arguments and tit bits of information you invariably calculate the likely range of opinions/beliefs/arguments someone holds.

 

[gek-opel]

Thing is, when you're dealing with pure text (i.e. information like tone-of-voice and body language is unavailable), what you say and how you say it are one and the same thing. I mean, it can be impossible to disentangle what someone is saying from the way they're saying it, whereas in face-to-face speech you have non-verbal clues to go by.

Also there is the question of what people show you over the internet- ie: their persona. If I told you I have a predilection for poor taste knob jokes in real life that might surprise you, as I have chosen to not engage in the telling of poor taste knob-related gags on this forum. So your attempt at "mapping" my personality (or anyone's I would suspect)is always partial. So perhaps best to limit the judgements obtained via such mapping processes merely to being able to predict the kind of arguments the persona makes?

 

[IdleRich]

"Also there is the question of what people show you over the internet- ie: their persona."

Very true and equally true of interactions in the real world of course. All judgments are behaviourist and (without getting into how reasonable it is to "judge" people or feel you know them in reality) you can form a view of someone (mentally not physically) over the internet that is just as valid as that formed after meeting them.
For example, just suppose there was someone who came across as an incredibly argumentative, rude and arguably mentally ill wanker who had read a load of stuff that he couldn't hope to understand and aggressively tried to put it across in garbled psychobabble and became increasingly frustrated when someone pointed out their errors, then I probably wouldn't get along with that hypothetical person in real life.

"I have a predilection for poor taste knob jokes"

Go on then.