Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

castille · Jan 31, 2004, 09:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Catch 22,)
I think we're all overlooking one major factor here. You're asking poor people who've never tasted a rich lifestyle before what would happen if they were suddenly rich. Obviously a lot of people would go all out, they're fantasizing not thinking in reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So why is it that the majority of Tattslotto winners tend to lose their wealth faster than a bullet train?

According to "social laws", all lottery winners should build fortunes of billions and be richer than Bill Gates. After all, Bill Gates wasn't a millionaire when he started Microsoft.

Or according to "social laws", should people like Benjamin Franklin be a shoe shine boy or blacksmith? After all, he was an apprentice when he started out.

Or according to your "social laws", shouldn't Adolf Hitler have remained a poor painter? After all, he had no rich parents, and he wasnt exactly born into politics.

In Australia, 84% of millionaires are self-made. This means they did not inherit their million dollars, they made it by themselves.

Fact is, most people don't have discipline. Why do people take out "car loans"? Unless you live in the wilderness, you can take a train until you afford a car. Or credit cards? I don't see why cash can't handle everything; even Internet selling can accept money orders or bank transfers.

eburchelli · Jan 31, 2004, 10:37 pm

I always pay cash for my cars. I won't buy one until I've saved enough. But I love my 2 credit cards. I use them in place of money that I have, because I don't like carrying money. I never leave a balance on them. I pay them off before any interest accures.

PeterAngelo · Feb 1, 2004, 11:55 am

eburchelli:

You have it right.

When I was defrauded by a banker and his lawyers I studied law. I learned that there are two distinctly seperate bodies of law. One has to do with acquiring wealth (property). The second body of laws deals with keeping it.

There is an army of educated experts in law, finance, and the fine art of playing the system.

Lottery winners are usually desperately poor, uneducated, and often low IQ people who could never accumulate wealth on a level playing field.

There are just too many smart people taking advantage of the armies of dummies. It has always been so.

I learned what I needed to in order to play on that field. I am now happy. We have five lawyers in the family now, and that pig banker, and his lawyers, are now my bitches.

Like the Count of Monte Cristo, it can be done, but not without a lot of effort. There really is no free lunch.

Bill Gates would have been cleaned out a long time ago if he were not blessed with a rare combination of talents.

He is a techie geek with the business acumen of Genghis Kahn. That is almost unknown in history.

Most inventors are not even known. Bell got the patent for the phone because he was politically connected.

That's the system.

Not many even know - much less can play.

Catch 22 · Feb 1, 2004, 01:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Catch 22,)
I think we're all overlooking one major factor here. You're asking poor people who've never tasted a rich lifestyle before what would happen if they were suddenly rich. Obviously a lot of people would go all out, they're fantasizing not thinking in reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So why is it that the majority of Tattslotto winners tend to lose their wealth faster than a bullet train?

According to "social laws", all lottery winners should build fortunes of billions and be richer than Bill Gates. After all, Bill Gates wasn't a millionaire when he started Microsoft.

Or according to "social laws", should people like Benjamin Franklin be a shoe shine boy or blacksmith? After all, he was an apprentice when he started out.

Or according to your "social laws", shouldn't Adolf Hitler have remained a poor painter? After all, he had no rich parents, and he wasnt exactly born into politics.

In Australia, 84% of millionaires are self-made. This means they did not inherit their million dollars, they made it by themselves.

Fact is, most people don't have discipline. Why do people take out "car loans"? Unless you live in the wilderness, you can take a train until you afford a car. Or credit cards? I don't see why cash can't handle everything; even Internet selling can accept money orders or bank transfers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again you're using maladaptive examples. Lotto winners are by nature obviously not the kind of people that you would base social studies on. These people are a certain kind of people who want money so they can blow it. They obviously aren't very good at business otherwise they wouldn't be in the lotto and they don’t seem to mind spending money on a hopeless cause. Thus winners could be more apt to make poor business decisions and ride on impulse.

A better experiment would be one in which we see what happens to a family below the poverty line when we bump it above the poverty line by say 10k. Those are the kind of results I'd like to see.

All social laws have exceptions to the rule and you anecdotal evidence supports that. There are many self-made millionaires and there are many inherited millionaires. Your Australian stat proves that, I'm a dual Australian American citizen. I know about the high taxes and strong labor laws that keep the rich somewhat in check. That's why so many rich Australians are self-made. Most of the aristocrats were taxed out of that position.

Now please let’s look at issues with using such fragile evidence.

Leopard · Feb 19, 2004, 04:53 am

I know about the high taxes and strong labor laws that keep the rich somewhat in check.

oh my, and a 'thank you' for the smile you gave...

two questions here:

What is it that the 'high taxes' and 'labor laws' are suppose to be 'keep in check' that the 'rich' are apparently trying to do?

Fact: The more money you have, the better equipped you are to protect your wealth from those who would otherwise deprive you of it.

Given the above 'fact', don't you think that the 'rich' have available to themselves methods and means with which to protect themselves from the greedy, grubby, thieving hands of government? As long as the government exerts power over individuals that individuals do not themselves have, the wealthy will always discover ways to make the less wealthy pay the lions share of taxation...in other words, beware the power you ceed to the government, it will ALWAYS be used against you, whether you know it or not

Simple thought-proof of this:
Can you define what 'inflation' is, why it occurs, and what its actual effects are on your pocketbook?

if you can understand the far-reaching implications to the answers to that question, you will understand why your statement is flawed.

sorry to post like this, it really comes across as being condescending... but I do get tired of explaining things that apparently get lost in translation somewhere in cyberspace, so am trying a different tact here, one more of 'joint discovery' rather than 'preaching'...

doesn't know it all, or even a significant portion - just knows that freedom works,
michael

Anarchist Patriot · Feb 19, 2004, 07:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
A recent MX poll (free newspaper found at most train/tram stops) discovered some interesting results about people and money.

The poll asked the question, "If you earned $1 million each year, how would you change your lifestyle?"

The question had multiple choices (summarised due to long length!):
Party Lifestyle: Spend 75-100%, save little to none. Travel, throwing grand parties, new cars/TV/gadgets, etc.

High Spending, Standard Saving: Spend approximately 50-75%, save the rest.

Moderate spending, moderate saving: Maintain moderate lifestyle.

Complete investment: Spend only enough for necessities, and invest everything.

65% chose the Party Lifestyle.
25% chose the High Spending lifestyle.
9% chose the moderate spending lifestyle
1% chose the Complete Investment lifestyle.

Additionally, an article on the UK Independent (8th January 2004, by Andrew Clennell) shows that the average IDEAL lifestyle would cost approximately £2.6 million a year! (thats a lot more in American dollars).

Is there any wonder why Americans are so poor? Why are most people in CREDIT CARD debt? (What is the point of having a credit card when you could pay cash and save on massive interest rates?)

Gee, I really wonder why most people are poor and in debt....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
An oversimplication of the facts.

Credit cards are actually necessary for some things.We no longer have a cash economy. If you don't believe me try booking a flight and paying in cash. Try renting a car.

Furthermore, as inflation rises and wages stagnate and as more and more people loose their work, credit cards is the only way they can live.

Feb 19, 2004, 08:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Okay, I disagree. The leading cause of poverty is just that, POVERTY. If you're born into poverty you're not likely to get out of it. That's what's statistically shown. Sure, there are people who go into poverty, though look at the numbers of people who get themselves out of poverty, not many. This is another reason which proves trickle down economics wrong-because all it does is allow middle class familys to go into proverty, though it does not allow any poverty-ridden people to get into the middle class.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually this is a misreading of the stats. Yes the numbers remain approximately the same, or go up once the government gets involved in "helping" people, but the individuals actually change. People move into and out of poverty (when we define that in any specific meaningful way of course) all the time so that the members of the class change though the number stay relatively the same.

Naturally there are some exceptions. Farm families tend to stay belov poverty though they may bave millions of dollars in equipment and land. Of course there are small percentages of individuals who stay in poverty (again once this is defined in some meaningful way-therefore connected to reality) but these are the exceptions not the rule.

Poetic_Justice · Feb 19, 2004, 03:29 pm

Why are people poor?

My from the hip response? Government.

Government regulations protect corporations and give them a leg up on consumers, as well as preventing free entry into the market.

To think in a country of supposed free enterprise to start a business I must comply with zoning laws, I must get a business license, I must register my business nationally, etc. etc. etc. (Free Enterprise MY ASS)

Also, can you explain to me why from the minimum taxation limit up till $300,000 an individual in my country pays from 30%-40% income tax(that's not including all our other little taxes, while a corporation pays 12%? (That is blatant tampering with economic equilibrium in favour of the producer)

Oh, and lets not forget the government devaluation of money, which to a person who cannot invest their meagre savings into Gold or other precious metals means that their savings depreciate. (Read some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work on this very issue, I implore you!)

The government hurts the poor more than any other enterprise. So if you want to help the downtrodden, as I do, your only logical attack has tobe centered on the removal of most of their problems by the removal of government.

Leopard · Feb 19, 2004, 07:24 pm

WooHoo!
I applaud you sir Poetic - good post! and I agree with your description and reference to Mr. Hoppes

luv seeing the benefits of freedom being rung,
michael

castille · Feb 21, 2004, 08:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
To think in a country of supposed free enterprise to start a business I must comply with zoning laws, I must get a business license, I must register my business nationally, etc. etc. etc. (Free Enterprise MY ASS)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You have to comply with zoning laws for other peoples concerns. Would you enjoy it if a nuclear waste factory moved next door? Thats what zoning laws are for.

Also, you have to register your business because it provides customers with the knowledge that your business is real. So if your intent to start a business is to sell fake plots on the moon, then the government can stop you. Again, this is to protect consumers.

One of my friends had a non-registered "business" that involved 9-year-old kids gambling. Is this what you want?

I think any idiot who can't be bothered spending 5 minutes filling out a business registration form and the $30 it costs to register a business, than why the hell bother starting a business?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So if you want to help the downtrodden, as I do, your only logical attack has tobe centered on the removal of most of their problems by the removal of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes....the Mafia wants this too.

Leopard · Feb 21, 2004, 06:13 pm

Dearest and most well-intentioned Castille:

You have to comply with zoning laws for other peoples concerns. Would you enjoy it if a nuclear waste factory moved next door? Thats what zoning laws are for.
Yes, I agree that there is a desire and need of people to be secure in their property and area. This is 'supposedly' the purpose of zoning restrictions. BUT, as the history of zoning has shown - it is more often used as a device to excert governmental power (and corporate manipulation thereof) over the average citizen. It is possible to achieve 'zoning' purely through private means (deed restrictions and covenents) without government and ALL the abuse thereof. Do not for a minute think that if the government decided (or perhaps a senator who was lobbyied effectively with bribes or some other means) to put a Nuclear Waste Facility on top of your house, that zoning would prevent it.

Also, you have to register your business because it provides customers with the knowledge that your business is real. So if your intent to start a business is to sell fake plots on the moon, then the government can stop you. Again, this is to protect consumers.
Customers are more than able (and better equiped) to protect themselves through private means, take the UL certification laboratories for instance, or the publication Consumer Reports. With the monopolization of 'protection' being assumed by government, we (as consumers) are at the mercy of political decisions being made that directly affect us WITHOUT recourse. If you gullibly buy some 'fake moon plots' you are able to get recourse through the court system. We can stop, and have stopped fraudalent practices effectively in the past without government interference. Do you REALLY believe that the FDA is serving your best interests? Would you even be able to fathom the possibility that the FDA has killed more people indirectly through its actions than compared to before its inception?

I think any idiot who can't be bothered spending 5 minutes filling out a business registration form and the $30 it costs to register a business, than why the hell bother starting a business?
have you EVER started up a business? I have, and I am currently the owner of a successful small business and I know the amount of 'hoops' I have to jump through and the time it takes to deal with these easy '5 minute' forms - this is a COST to me that is proportionally greater than compared to my competitors due to their size. So, no matter what the 'amount' is, there is a direct affect on the market, currently the effect of regulation is to make small business more uncompetitive against larger corporations... shouldn't the consumer make this type of decision (whether to buy from large or small businesses) rather than the government?

Yes....the Mafia wants this too.
phooey. the mafia couldn't even exist without government. In fact, the government itself fits the description perfectly of being a 'mafia'...

michael

Poetic_Justice · Feb 21, 2004, 06:20 pm

Funny, you mention selling moon plots.. .right now companies 'sell' naming rights to stars... of course they don't tell you that they're only selling you a certificate and that the naming has already been done by the official sources.. .but whatever legally they're covered, and they have valid business licenses...

PeterAngelo · Feb 22, 2004, 04:52 am

We ARE the mafia.

antayla · Feb 22, 2004, 04:02 pm

Kewl Stats, castille :)

I think both the "rich" and the "poor" are deluding themselves by stupporing this heirarchal (pyramidal) structure that concentrates all the wealth and responsibility in the hands of a few. The rich constantly have to worry about losing what they have, and the poor never learn how to manage assets so that they can get what they really want out of life. I feel sorry for both "sides." As I see it, the only answer is for the rich to spend the money to enable the poor so that we have a STABLE economy where no one need worry about collapse, people don't breed for lack of a life goal or education, and no one need go hungry because we've PLANNED for our needs. What it TAKES is people trusting other people to act in their own true best interests. Our best interests are interconnected after all... we only live in one economy, no matter how much nationalists try to claim otherwise.

Leopard · Feb 22, 2004, 05:06 pm

good post antayla

but you lost me with the 'planned' part re: food, education, housing, etc

do you accept that people will always be around who 'choose' to place themselves in positions where food et al is hard to come by?

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 22, 2004, 07:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
A recent MX poll (free newspaper found at most train/tram stops) discovered some interesting results about people and money.

The poll asked the question, "If you earned $1 million each year, how would you change your lifestyle?"

The question had multiple choices (summarised due to long length!):
Party Lifestyle: Spend 75-100%, save little to none. Travel, throwing grand parties, new cars/TV/gadgets, etc.

High Spending, Standard Saving: Spend approximately 50-75%, save the rest.

Moderate spending, moderate saving: Maintain moderate lifestyle.

Complete investment: Spend only enough for necessities, and invest everything.

65% chose the Party Lifestyle.
25% chose the High Spending lifestyle.
9% chose the moderate spending lifestyle
1% chose the Complete Investment lifestyle.

Additionally, an article on the UK Independent (8th January 2004, by Andrew Clennell) shows that the average IDEAL lifestyle would cost approximately £2.6 million a year! (thats a lot more in American dollars).

Is there any wonder why Americans are so poor? Why are most people in CREDIT CARD debt? (What is the point of having a credit card when you could pay cash and save on massive interest rates?)

Gee, I really wonder why most people are poor and in debt....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This whole poll is meaningless.

Maybe this might happen to ONE person who took the poll via lottery...but this whole poll takes place in fantasyworld. So OBVIOUSLY most people are going to choose to spend it since they know they'll never see a lump sum like that in their lives.

However...if it ACTUALLY happened...the results would be very different.

All you have to do is look at past lottery winners. How did they spend their winnings?

This poll is just for fun. Nothing scientific.

antayla · Feb 22, 2004, 07:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
good post antayla

but you lost me with the 'planned' part re: food, education, housing, etc

do you accept that people will always be around who 'choose' to place themselves in positions where food et al is hard to come by?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Shouldn't we all be planning for our future? It's what we should be doing. I'm not talking about controlled systems, I'm just talking about people looking at themselves as part of a whole economy, instead of one limited area.

I think they will choose to live or they will choose to die. Isn't that really the only choice we can make? I know lots of people killing themselves with bad food, drugs, over-breeding, etc. There are lots of people who don't bother to think on the future, they spend now and deal with the consequences later. That is irrational. I KNOW these people! I'm not rich, and I watch my "poor" friends spend their time complaining instead of thinking. It's so easy to find the good things in life ... but they have to believe they can do it. Poor people have been told over and over they are helpless, that they can't get ahead. I don't buy it. It is just that no one ever stopped buying their excuses. Well, I'm tired of it, and I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to get some networks/businesses going that help these people see that they AREN'T helpless, by any stretch of the imagination. Most people just need to be told where and how to start. And they need someone to tell them that it is THEIR fault that they are not taking the steps necessary to save themselves. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to look at the objective picture and buck the lies, but I will do my best. I have nothing better to do

And as far as the rich go, I will help them out by raising the competency level of the workers. Everyone profits in a good economy after all... Most rich people are happy to have to work less to keep their business running, just like the rest of us.

jaXbeech · Mar 14, 2004, 11:51 am

In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.

Leopard · Mar 14, 2004, 01:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,)
In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

please realize - just 'working hard' accomplishes nothing. One can labor 24hrs per day making elegant mudpies and end up on the bread lines - the key is to work smart, understand the market a wee bit, know what 'type' of labor is in demand and educate yourself with the required skills... this is your life afterall, don't waste your time doing things that don't maximize your happiness & wealth...

michael

Paavo · Mar 14, 2004, 04:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,)
In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, being that education costs in America, wouldn't that actually minimize the poor person's chances of "making her way to the top"? To have "endless opportunities" shouldn't everyone get the same education - possibilities? And what's "endless opportunities" supposed to mean exactly?

If I was born into a poor family, and would be able to choose to which country I'd go to start my life, I'd sure as hell not pick America.

Jan 31, 2004, 09:38 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Catch 22,) I think we're all overlooking one major factor here. You're asking poor people who've never tasted a rich lifestyle before what would happen if they were suddenly rich. Obviously a lot of people would go all out, they're fantasizing not thinking in reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So why is it that the majority of Tattslotto winners tend to lose their wealth faster than a bullet train? According to "social laws", all lottery winners should build fortunes of billions and be richer than Bill Gates. After all, Bill Gates wasn't a millionaire when he started Microsoft. Or according to "social laws", should people like Benjamin Franklin be a shoe shine boy or blacksmith? After all, he was an apprentice when he started out. Or according to your "social laws", shouldn't Adolf Hitler have remained a poor painter? After all, he had no rich parents, and he wasnt exactly born into politics. In Australia, 84% of millionaires are self-made. This means they did not inherit their million dollars, they made it by themselves. Fact is, most people don't have discipline. Why do people take out "car loans"? Unless you live in the wilderness, you can take a train until you afford a car. Or credit cards? I don't see why cash can't handle everything; even Internet selling can accept money orders or bank transfers. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 1, 2004, 01:22 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Catch 22 Igneous Magma Posts: 374	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Catch 22,) I think we're all overlooking one major factor here. You're asking poor people who've never tasted a rich lifestyle before what would happen if they were suddenly rich. Obviously a lot of people would go all out, they're fantasizing not thinking in reality. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So why is it that the majority of Tattslotto winners tend to lose their wealth faster than a bullet train? According to "social laws", all lottery winners should build fortunes of billions and be richer than Bill Gates. After all, Bill Gates wasn't a millionaire when he started Microsoft. Or according to "social laws", should people like Benjamin Franklin be a shoe shine boy or blacksmith? After all, he was an apprentice when he started out. Or according to your "social laws", shouldn't Adolf Hitler have remained a poor painter? After all, he had no rich parents, and he wasnt exactly born into politics. In Australia, 84% of millionaires are self-made. This means they did not inherit their million dollars, they made it by themselves. Fact is, most people don't have discipline. Why do people take out "car loans"? Unless you live in the wilderness, you can take a train until you afford a car. Or credit cards? I don't see why cash can't handle everything; even Internet selling can accept money orders or bank transfers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again you're using maladaptive examples. Lotto winners are by nature obviously not the kind of people that you would base social studies on. These people are a certain kind of people who want money so they can blow it. They obviously aren't very good at business otherwise they wouldn't be in the lotto and they don’t seem to mind spending money on a hopeless cause. Thus winners could be more apt to make poor business decisions and ride on impulse. A better experiment would be one in which we see what happens to a family below the poverty line when we bump it above the poverty line by say 10k. Those are the kind of results I'd like to see. All social laws have exceptions to the rule and you anecdotal evidence supports that. There are many self-made millionaires and there are many inherited millionaires. Your Australian stat proves that, I'm a dual Australian American citizen. I know about the high taxes and strong labor laws that keep the rich somewhat in check. That's why so many rich Australians are self-made. Most of the aristocrats were taxed out of that position. Now please let’s look at issues with using such fragile evidence. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered Martin Luther King Jr.

Feb 19, 2004, 04:53 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	*I know about the high taxes and strong labor laws that keep the rich somewhat in check.* oh my, and a 'thank you' for the smile you gave... two questions here: What is it that the 'high taxes' and 'labor laws' are suppose to be 'keep in check' that the 'rich' are apparently trying to do? Fact: The more money you have, the better equipped you are to protect your wealth from those who would otherwise deprive you of it. Given the above 'fact', don't you think that the 'rich' have available to themselves methods and means with which to protect themselves from the greedy, grubby, thieving hands of government? As long as the government exerts power over individuals that individuals do not themselves have, the wealthy will always discover ways to make the less wealthy pay the lions share of taxation...in other words, beware the power you ceed to the government, it will ALWAYS be used against you, whether you know it or not Simple thought-proof of this: Can you define what 'inflation' is, why it occurs, and what its actual effects are on your pocketbook? if you can understand the far-reaching implications to the answers to that question, you will understand why your statement is flawed. sorry to post like this, it really comes across as being condescending... but I do get tired of explaining things that apparently get lost in translation somewhere in cyberspace, so am trying a different tact here, one more of 'joint discovery' rather than 'preaching'... doesn't know it all, or even a significant portion - just knows that freedom works, michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 19, 2004, 07:44 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Patriot Molten Ash Posts: 143	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) A recent MX poll (free newspaper found at most train/tram stops) discovered some interesting results about people and money. The poll asked the question, "If you earned $1 million each year, how would you change your lifestyle?" The question had multiple choices (summarised due to long length!): Party Lifestyle: Spend 75-100%, save little to none. Travel, throwing grand parties, new cars/TV/gadgets, etc. High Spending, Standard Saving: Spend approximately 50-75%, save the rest. Moderate spending, moderate saving: Maintain moderate lifestyle. Complete investment: Spend only enough for necessities, and invest everything. 65% chose the Party Lifestyle. 25% chose the High Spending lifestyle. 9% chose the moderate spending lifestyle 1% chose the Complete Investment lifestyle. Additionally, an article on the UK Independent (8th January 2004, by Andrew Clennell) shows that the average IDEAL lifestyle would cost approximately £2.6 million a year! (thats a lot more in American dollars). Is there any wonder why Americans are so poor? Why are most people in CREDIT CARD debt? (What is the point of having a credit card when you could pay cash and save on massive interest rates?) Gee, I really wonder why most people are poor and in debt....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> An oversimplication of the facts. Credit cards are actually necessary for some things.We no longer have a cash economy. If you don't believe me try booking a flight and paying in cash. Try renting a car. Furthermore, as inflation rises and wages stagnate and as more and more people loose their work, credit cards is the only way they can live.

Feb 19, 2004, 08:19 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Okay, I disagree. The leading cause of poverty is just that, POVERTY. If you're born into poverty you're not likely to get out of it. That's what's statistically shown. Sure, there are people who go into poverty, though look at the numbers of people who get themselves out of poverty, not many. This is another reason which proves trickle down economics wrong-because all it does is allow middle class familys to go into proverty, though it does not allow any poverty-ridden people to get into the middle class.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually this is a misreading of the stats. Yes the numbers remain approximately the same, or go up once the government gets involved in "helping" people, but the individuals actually change. People move into and out of poverty (when we define that in any specific meaningful way of course) all the time so that the members of the class change though the number stay relatively the same. Naturally there are some exceptions. Farm families tend to stay belov poverty though they may bave millions of dollars in equipment and land. Of course there are small percentages of individuals who stay in poverty (again once this is defined in some meaningful way-therefore connected to reality) but these are the exceptions not the rule.

Jan 31, 2004, 10:37 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	I always pay cash for my cars. I won't buy one until I've saved enough. But I love my 2 credit cards. I use them in place of money that I have, because I don't like carrying money. I never leave a balance on them. I pay them off before any interest accures.

Feb 1, 2004, 11:55 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	eburchelli: You have it right. When I was defrauded by a banker and his lawyers I studied law. I learned that there are two distinctly seperate bodies of law. One has to do with acquiring wealth (property). The second body of laws deals with keeping it. There is an army of educated experts in law, finance, and the fine art of playing the system. Lottery winners are usually desperately poor, uneducated, and often low IQ people who could never accumulate wealth on a level playing field. There are just too many smart people taking advantage of the armies of dummies. It has always been so. I learned what I needed to in order to play on that field. I am now happy. We have five lawyers in the family now, and that pig banker, and his lawyers, are now my bitches. Like the Count of Monte Cristo, it can be done, but not without a lot of effort. There really is no free lunch. Bill Gates would have been cleaned out a long time ago if he were not blessed with a rare combination of talents. He is a techie geek with the business acumen of Genghis Kahn. That is almost unknown in history. Most inventors are not even known. Bell got the patent for the phone because he was politically connected. That's the system. Not many even know - much less can play.

Feb 19, 2004, 03:29 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Why are people poor? My from the hip response? Government. Government regulations protect corporations and give them a leg up on consumers, as well as preventing free entry into the market. To think in a country of supposed free enterprise to start a business I must comply with zoning laws, I must get a business license, I must register my business nationally, etc. etc. etc. (Free Enterprise MY ASS) Also, can you explain to me why from the minimum taxation limit up till $300,000 an individual in my country pays from 30%-40% income tax(that's not including all our other little taxes, while a corporation pays 12%? (That is blatant tampering with economic equilibrium in favour of the producer) Oh, and lets not forget the government devaluation of money, which to a person who cannot invest their meagre savings into Gold or other precious metals means that their savings depreciate. (Read some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work on this very issue, I implore you!) The government hurts the poor more than any other enterprise. So if you want to help the downtrodden, as I do, your only logical attack has tobe centered on the removal of most of their problems by the removal of government.

Feb 19, 2004, 07:24 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	WooHoo! I applaud you sir Poetic - good post! and I agree with your description and reference to Mr. Hoppes luv seeing the benefits of freedom being rung, michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 21, 2004, 08:54 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) To think in a country of supposed free enterprise to start a business I must comply with zoning laws, I must get a business license, I must register my business nationally, etc. etc. etc. (Free Enterprise MY ASS)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have to comply with zoning laws for other peoples concerns. Would you enjoy it if a nuclear waste factory moved next door? Thats what zoning laws are for. Also, you have to register your business because it provides customers with the knowledge that your business is real. So if your intent to start a business is to sell fake plots on the moon, then the government can stop you. Again, this is to protect consumers. One of my friends had a non-registered "business" that involved 9-year-old kids gambling. Is this what you want? I think any idiot who can't be bothered spending 5 minutes filling out a business registration form and the $30 it costs to register a business, than why the hell bother starting a business? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So if you want to help the downtrodden, as I do, your only logical attack has tobe centered on the removal of most of their problems by the removal of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes....the Mafia wants this too. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 21, 2004, 06:13 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Dearest and most well-intentioned Castille: You have to comply with zoning laws for other peoples concerns. Would you enjoy it if a nuclear waste factory moved next door? Thats what zoning laws are for. Yes, I agree that there is a desire and need of people to be secure in their property and area. This is 'supposedly' the purpose of zoning restrictions. BUT, as the history of zoning has shown - it is more often used as a device to excert governmental power (and corporate manipulation thereof) over the average citizen. It is possible to achieve 'zoning' purely through private means (deed restrictions and covenents) without government and ALL the abuse thereof. Do not for a minute think that if the government decided (or perhaps a senator who was lobbyied effectively with bribes or some other means) to put a Nuclear Waste Facility on top of your house, that zoning would prevent it. Also, you have to register your business because it provides customers with the knowledge that your business is real. So if your intent to start a business is to sell fake plots on the moon, then the government can stop you. Again, this is to protect consumers. Customers are more than able (and better equiped) to protect themselves through private means, take the UL certification laboratories for instance, or the publication Consumer Reports. With the monopolization of 'protection' being assumed by government, we (as consumers) are at the mercy of political decisions being made that directly affect us WITHOUT recourse. If you gullibly buy some 'fake moon plots' you are able to get recourse through the court system. We can stop, and have stopped fraudalent practices effectively in the past without government interference. Do you REALLY believe that the FDA is serving your best interests? Would you even be able to fathom the possibility that the FDA has killed more people indirectly through its actions than compared to before its inception? I think any idiot who can't be bothered spending 5 minutes filling out a business registration form and the $30 it costs to register a business, than why the hell bother starting a business? have you EVER started up a business? I have, and I am currently the owner of a successful small business and I know the amount of 'hoops' I have to jump through and the time it takes to deal with these easy '5 minute' forms - this is a COST to me that is proportionally greater than compared to my competitors due to their size. So, no matter what the 'amount' is, there is a direct affect on the market, currently the effect of regulation is to make small business more uncompetitive against larger corporations... shouldn't the consumer make this type of decision (whether to buy from large or small businesses) rather than the government? Yes....the Mafia wants this too. phooey. the mafia couldn't even exist without government. In fact, the government itself fits the description perfectly of being a 'mafia'... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 21, 2004, 06:20 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Funny, you mention selling moon plots.. .right now companies 'sell' naming rights to stars... of course they don't tell you that they're only selling you a certificate and that the naming has already been done by the official sources.. .but whatever legally they're covered, and they have valid business licenses...

Feb 22, 2004, 04:52 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	We ARE the mafia.

Feb 22, 2004, 04:02 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
antayla Molten Ash Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 56	Kewl Stats, castille :) I think both the "rich" and the "poor" are deluding themselves by stupporing this heirarchal (pyramidal) structure that concentrates all the wealth and responsibility in the hands of a few. The rich constantly have to worry about losing what they have, and the poor never learn how to manage assets so that they can get what they really want out of life. I feel sorry for both "sides." As I see it, the only answer is for the rich to spend the money to enable the poor so that we have a STABLE economy where no one need worry about collapse, people don't breed for lack of a life goal or education, and no one need go hungry because we've PLANNED for our needs. What it TAKES is people trusting other people to act in their own true best interests. Our best interests are interconnected after all... we only live in one economy, no matter how much nationalists try to claim otherwise. Member of the Free State Project. http://www.freestateproject.com

Feb 22, 2004, 05:06 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	good post antayla but you lost me with the 'planned' part re: food, education, housing, etc do you accept that people will always be around who 'choose' to place themselves in positions where food et al is hard to come by? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 22, 2004, 07:40 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) A recent MX poll (free newspaper found at most train/tram stops) discovered some interesting results about people and money. The poll asked the question, "If you earned $1 million each year, how would you change your lifestyle?" The question had multiple choices (summarised due to long length!): Party Lifestyle: Spend 75-100%, save little to none. Travel, throwing grand parties, new cars/TV/gadgets, etc. High Spending, Standard Saving: Spend approximately 50-75%, save the rest. Moderate spending, moderate saving: Maintain moderate lifestyle. Complete investment: Spend only enough for necessities, and invest everything. 65% chose the Party Lifestyle. 25% chose the High Spending lifestyle. 9% chose the moderate spending lifestyle 1% chose the Complete Investment lifestyle. Additionally, an article on the UK Independent (8th January 2004, by Andrew Clennell) shows that the average IDEAL lifestyle would cost approximately £2.6 million a year! (thats a lot more in American dollars). Is there any wonder why Americans are so poor? Why are most people in CREDIT CARD debt? (What is the point of having a credit card when you could pay cash and save on massive interest rates?) Gee, I really wonder why most people are poor and in debt....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This whole poll is meaningless. Maybe this might happen to ONE person who took the poll via lottery...but this whole poll takes place in fantasyworld. So OBVIOUSLY most people are going to choose to spend it since they know they'll never see a lump sum like that in their lives. However...if it ACTUALLY happened...the results would be very different. All you have to do is look at past lottery winners. How did they spend their winnings? This poll is just for fun. Nothing scientific.

Feb 22, 2004, 07:59 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
antayla Molten Ash Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 56	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) good post antayla but you lost me with the 'planned' part re: food, education, housing, etc do you accept that people will always be around who 'choose' to place themselves in positions where food et al is hard to come by?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Shouldn't we all be planning for our future? It's what we should be doing. I'm not talking about controlled systems, I'm just talking about people looking at themselves as part of a whole economy, instead of one limited area. I think they will choose to live or they will choose to die. Isn't that really the only choice we can make? I know lots of people killing themselves with bad food, drugs, over-breeding, etc. There are lots of people who don't bother to think on the future, they spend now and deal with the consequences later. That is irrational. I KNOW these people! I'm not rich, and I watch my "poor" friends spend their time complaining instead of thinking. It's so easy to find the good things in life ... but they have to believe they can do it. Poor people have been told over and over they are helpless, that they can't get ahead. I don't buy it. It is just that no one ever stopped buying their excuses. Well, I'm tired of it, and I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to get some networks/businesses going that help these people see that they AREN'T helpless, by any stretch of the imagination. Most people just need to be told where and how to start. And they need someone to tell them that it is THEIR fault that they are not taking the steps necessary to save themselves. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to look at the objective picture and buck the lies, but I will do my best. I have nothing better to do And as far as the rich go, I will help them out by raising the competency level of the workers. Everyone profits in a good economy after all... Most rich people are happy to have to work less to keep their business running, just like the rest of us. Member of the Free State Project. http://www.freestateproject.com

Mar 14, 2004, 11:51 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
jaXbeech Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.

Mar 14, 2004, 01:23 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,) In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> please realize - just 'working hard' accomplishes nothing. One can labor 24hrs per day making elegant mudpies and end up on the bread lines - the key is to work smart, understand the market a wee bit, know what 'type' of labor is in demand and educate yourself with the required skills... this is your life afterall, don't waste your time doing things that don't maximize your happiness & wealth... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 14, 2004, 04:02 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jaXbeech,) In America we have endless opportunities, even if you are poor you can make your way to the top. That is why I love America so much. Being poor is just an excuse. As long as you work hard you can make a good life for you and your family.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, being that education costs in America, wouldn't that actually minimize the poor person's chances of "making her way to the top"? To have "endless opportunities" shouldn't everyone get the same education - possibilities? And what's "endless opportunities" supposed to mean exactly? If I was born into a poor family, and would be able to choose to which country I'd go to start my life, I'd sure as hell not pick America.