Billionaires & Jeff Bezos Wealth

[Leo Gura]

56 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

In fact, a large majority of them earn their wealth from manipulating systems, inheritances and situational networks of which many of the poor do not the luxury to interact with.

Of course it's complicated, but the rich are smarter than the poor generally speaking.

Beware this Marxist idea that the poor are somehow equal to the rich, equally capable as the rich, and equally smart/wise as the rich. This is a dangerous idea. The poor are, for the most part, idiots. This doesn't mean there aren't some rich who are idiots. There certainly are. And it doesn't mean that the smartest rich are deeply spiritually wise. But the rich are generally smarter and wiser and more competent than the poor.

Don't forget. People without college degrees vote overwhelmingly conservative and for buffoons like Trump.

As bad as you might think being ruled by the rich is, being ruled by the poor would be way worse. Rule by the poor will lead to stuff like fascism and genocide.

Believe it or not, rich people are actually MORE morally developed and conscious than poor people. Poor people simply have less opportunity and ambition to abuse it.

Poor people are not your friend and they will not save society from evil.

Progressives and socialists are way too enamored with poor people and populism. Populism is not some automatic good. Populism can cause all sorts of devilry.

[Heart of Space]

15 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

So, what are your guys thoughts on this issue and Billionaires in general and how we could make the inequality smaller ideally from a tier 2 perspective. 

Billionaires are money monarchs.  The whole justification for the existence of billionaires usually relies on invoking the concept of a meritocracy.  My issue is that billionaires completely break the concept of meritocracy, because they end up having so much money they no longer have to play the game, they end up making the rules.  

No one is so special that they should be able to bend the policy system to their will, or escape the normal bounds and limits of the law.   

I'm perfectly okay at this stage and time with having various classes and a certain level of income inequality.  But the upper bound of wealth needs to be brought down significantly.  

[Jacobsrw]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Be ware this Marxist idea that the poor are somehow equal to the rich, equally capable as the rich, and equally smart/wise as the rich. This is a dangerous idea. The poor are, for the most part, idiots. This doesn't mean there aren't some rich who are idiots. There certainly are. And it doesn't mean that the smartest rich are deeply spiritually wise. But rich are generally smarter and wiser and more competent than the poor.

This I am mindful of. I by no means subscribe to the ideas of Marxism personally, most of them hold no water in large scale societies. I agree that those in high end corporate/business positions have far more appropriate and effective means to operate a society. However, my point was that intelligence is not directly synonymous with wealth. Many whom are poor hold deep wisdom but do not hold the appropriate foundation or circumstance from which to potentiate it, often through no fault of their own.

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As bad as you might think being ruled by the rich is, being ruled by the poor would be way worse. Rule by the poor will lead to stuff like fascism and genocide.

Believe it or not, rich people are actually MORE morally developed and conscious than poor people. Poor people simply have less opportunity and ambition to abuse it.

Poor people are not your friend and they will not save society from evil.

Progressives and socialists are way too enamored with poor people and populism. Populism is not some automatic good. Populism can cause all sorts of devilry.

Hold on now, you are propagating assumptions haha. I never advocated for a society ran by the poor, this would be absurdity to do so. Nonetheless, I do think they require more agency and resource in order to use their skills, thereby, helping society to equalise economic burden.

The point is not to have poor people to run society but to develop them into adequate, competent civilians who can contribute to it. 

Well, what do you expect. Progressivist care more about how good an intellectual argument sounds than what it does for the world. It’s just another channel to complain about the government, which ironically is the only system allowing the them freedom to do so.

And yes, socialism is just the inverse of fascism. It’s just concerned with freedoms rather dictatorial power. Neither of them are any good in their totality.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Many whom are poor hold deep wisdom

Not as much as you'd think. Most poor people are stage Blue. They are easily fooled and misled by demagogues like Trump. Their fears are easily stoked. Their prejudices, closedmindedness, and ethnocentrism is easily exploited by charlatans and narcissists.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Nonetheless, I do think they require more agency and resource in order to use their skills, thereby, helping society to equalise economic burden.

The point is not to have poor people to run society but to develop them into adequate, competent civilians who can contribute to it.

Yes, definitely agree here.

The poor need more voting power and more outright assistance. I'm all for helping elevate and educate the poor.

[Jacobsrw]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not as much as you'd think. Most poor people are stage Blue. They are easily fooled and misled by demagogues like Trump. Their fears are easily stoked. Their prejudices, closedmindedness, and ethnocentrism is easily exploited by charlatans and narcissists.

Not all poor people are stage Blue.

What about ascetics, mystics and sages? Many of them live extremely conservative yet have the caliber of stage Turquoise knowledge. I’d far prefer the wisdom of an ascetic than that of a corporate. I can learn how to become meticulously rich. I cannot learn timeless awakening.

Also, consider that many poor resent a person like Trump since he is the very tyrant that undermines them.

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The poor need more voting power and more outright assistance. I'm all for helping elevate and educate the poor.

Indeed. Don’t forget many poor have become poor and rich. Giving them the right leverage could ease up our restraints on welfare and policing.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[AtheisticNonduality]

A rich person is a poor person in good circumstances, education, etc.  Yeah, some rich people are at the top because of their work ethic and smarts.  Some poor people are on the street because they're too stupid and immoral to achieve any level of success.  On the other hand, some rich people are total imbeciles that only have money because of their socioeconomic starting point.  A lot of intelligent poor people just aren't capable of mobility.  I don't think too much Darwinism is at play.  Across all groups, you will find stupidity.

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

What about ascetics, mystics and sages? Many of them live extremely conservative yet have the caliber of stage Turquoise knowledge.

Look, bro, that is 0.00001% of people.

Your average poor person is a racist, homophobe, bigot, ignoramus.

When we talk about politics, we have to consider averages and lowest common denominators. Citing a few exceptional counter-examples is not smart here.

[Akemrelax]

Majority of poor voted for Trump and still support the ideology he represents.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
 

I mean this should be fairly obvious right?

I remember my mom telling me about my aunt’s maid when she visited India. She didn’t understand the concept of countries. I remember the maid at my home didn’t know that cartoons were not real. It’s not their fault. It’s not just wealth that’s passed down, it’s also knowledge, culture, skills, etc.

The upper middle and the middle class might be more intelligent than the upper class though, their jobs require them to be smart.

[Jacobsrw]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Look, bro, that is 0.00001% of people.

Your average poor person is a racist, homophobe, bigot, ignoramus.

When we talk about politics, we have to consider averages and lowest common denominators. Citing a few exceptional counter-examples is not smart here.

True. I was simply providing an anomaly example, which I’m sure there exist many more. The average homeless person is uneducated and health deficient. What do you expect? It still does not negate the value or wisdom they may hold. You are generalising off what we merely hear from statistical testimony.

I do agree however, that generally the poor provide quite possibly little value regarding politics. But should they not be heard for their views? Or are you trying to argues for a Platonistic democracy ran by elites? Only those worthy of intellect to vote?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

13 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

The upper middle and the middle class might be more intelligent than the upper class though, their jobs require them to be smart.

Now that’s a meta point. Totally agree. Would this not suggest intelligence is contextual not merely learned. One who is exposed to the right environment will inevitably adopt the systemic thinking necessary to survive within it.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

But should they not be heard for their views?

The problem is their views are often dangerously uninformed.

32 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Or are you trying to argues for a Platonistic democracy ran by elites?

Actually I think Plato was onto something.

The people who should run society are philosophers. As in, the most wise people who are loves of wisdom.

But of course that's not gonna happen.

32 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Only those worthy of intellect to vote?

I would just invest a lot more money in education so that all people are well-educated by default.

[zeroISinfinity]

Thank Goodness for Transcendance. 

Human relative knowledge and life. Unchained and unbounded. 

Poor people idiots. Can't fucking beleive this shit. 

Born in la la land never faced anything think they figured  it all out. 

In land of blinds guy with one eye is king. 

[Akemrelax]

1 hour ago, Jacobsrw said:

Would this not suggest intelligence is contextual not merely learned.

Yes intelligence is relative, you can find wisdom in everyone. But it’s hard for people who are struggling to put food on the table to develop wisdom, they are low on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.

The rich have wisdom simply because they are materially and physically secure. They have access to education material and so on as well. 

Maybe you could say they have different types of wisdom. But in terms of politics and spirituality the rich would be more wise. Spirituality pops up in relatively affluent cultures, even in India the Brahmins (top caste) were suppose to be spiritual, the shudras and Dalits (lower castes) were not allowed/had the means to be spiritual. 

[commie]

46 minutes ago, zeroISinfinity said:

Poor people idiots. Can't fucking beleive this shit. 

Born in la la land never faced anything think they figured  it all out.

Never met liberals before?

[The Don]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Rich hold most of the power because they are smarter.

@Leo Gura, not because they are smarter but because those who run our governments abide by their rules. It's a fact.

The good news is that their powers can be regulated properly by the government. It just needs to happen, that's all.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, The Don said:

@Leo Gura, not because they are smarter but because those who run our governments abide by their rules. It's a fact.

The good news is that their powers can be regulated properly by the government. It just needs to happen, that's all.

Those who run government ARE the rich and the (relatively speaking) smart.

The Founding Fathers were rich smart elites and they wrote a pretty damn good Constitution. Except for the part about slaves.

[Jacobsrw]

5 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

Yes intelligence is relative, you can find wisdom in everyone. But it’s hard for people who are struggling to put food on the table to develop wisdom, they are low on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.

The rich have wisdom simply because they are materially and physically secure. They have access to education material and so on as well. 

Yes that’s true but it’s circumstantial not self-predicated. Those who are secure are by the very fact of where they were born and the social systems in which watered them, that being usually western or highly developed demographics.

5 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

But in terms of politics and spirituality the rich would be more wise.

Not so sure I agree with you there. On the continuum “poor” and “rich” are very vague terms from which to draw such a distinction. Many poor, who are not homeless on the street per say, are far more spiritually inclined and developed than a corporate businessman. The stereotypical poor are usually more humble and receptive than the rich I’d say. The stereotypical rich are usually more greedy, mechanistic, reductionistic and pragmatic. It’s simply all about what maximises their existing wealth. They have no grip on the metaphysical nature of reality if it could hit them over the head.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is their views are often dangerously uninformed.

Actually I think Plato was onto something.

The people who should run society are philosophers. As in, the most wise people who are loves of wisdom.

But of course that's not gonna happen.

I would just invest a lot more money in education so that all people are well-educated by default.

True however so are those in corporate power. 

Platos ideal would be interesting to see out. However, society would become far more materialistic and pragmatic than it already is, id guess. Considering majority of philosophers are now say “scientifically” subscribed and have little interest in metaphysical facets.

Nice idea. It would be grand but you would need to incentivise learning more than leisure. Which in our day an age seems more problematic than ever before.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Considering majority of philosophers are now say “scientifically” subscribed and have little interest in metaphysical facets.

Those aren't real philosophers.

A philosopher needs to have access to mystical insights and wisdom, as Plato did. A real philosopher needs to be conscious of God.