1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
> 1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
>
> 2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
1. poor people
They have the mindset that the world owes them everything. When they do happen to come into a little money, it is gone very quickly. They make sure to flaunt the money when they do have a little and they are usually the most cynical of people. Most of the people I know that are well off are some of the most helpful, generous people I have ever met.
2. lack of money
Lack of money is the cause for most of the drug dealing, stealing, etc. Of course, you do have some of this that goes on with people that have money. The rich people you hear most often involved with drugs and such are the professional athletes that come from nothing so that's what they know.
> 1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
>
> 2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
1. Greed is not limited to those with wealth.
2. What evidence is there that wealth causes evil?
> 1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
>
> 2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
There are two kinds of poor people, those who work and those who don't. The ones who don't are greedy and (of course) lazy.
But the rich man who has fantastic wealth and every kind lavish extravagance imaginable, yet still thinks it's okay to let working people starve if it will enhance his wealth. He is both greedy and evil.
#3...wrong category..
1) Rich people
2) lack of money
1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
Greed has nothing to do with how much money one may have. It does have a lot to
do with values and ethics.
2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
Same as above, values and ethics are the controlling forces not money.
> 1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
> Greed has nothing to do with how much money one may have. It does have a lot to
> do with values and ethics.
>
> 2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
> Same as above, values and ethics are the controlling forces not money.
Jud,
I believe you are correct sir, however I am speaking more to the fabric of actual human behavior, reality, and how that typical human behavior responds and shapes the world around us.
Example:
Suppose a guy with $500 loans out $50 to be paid back in one week, suppose he has not been paid back and one month has gone by, likely this guy will hound the debtor to the end of the earth.
On the other hand, suppose a guy with $500,000 loans out $50 to be paid back in one week, suppose one month has gone by without payment, this guy will likely shrug it off as no big deal.
no or yes?
Ask a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer.
jud
As I review my accounts receivable, I feel like the guy with $50 lending $500 to the guy with $500,000. And the month passes, and passes, and passes.
Really though,
1) Rich people are more greedy. That's how many of them got that way. The term covet comes to mind. Whilst poor people are more humble and appreciate things more.
2) Poor people are more likely to go astray. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm sure there is a statistic along those lines somewhere.
Bad analogy, poor inference. To equate this, it's akin to the $500 guy loaning a nickel - there's your no big deal.
Some people are greedy, period. Makes little difference whether or not they are rich or poor. Of course, poor people are failures at the wealth game where rich people are winners. The question is whether or not the rich people won as a result of an unfair advantage or just luck.
> Bad analogy, poor inference. To equate this, it's akin to the $500 guy loaning a nickel - there's your no big deal.
Our analogy's are in agreement.
> Some people are greedy, period. Makes little difference whether or not they are rich or poor. Of course, poor people are failures at the wealth game where rich people are winners. The question is whether or not the rich people won as a result of an unfair advantage or just luck.
I think most rich people work hard and invest in education & appreciating assets, understand business, and most of all solve other peoples problems, most see what is possible and do not stay focused on what is not possible.
They have a vision, try it, get feedback, adjust, try again, repeat until successful.
The richer someone is the more generous they can afford to be, Gates & Buffet have given away billions...with a b.
I am not and advocate for rich or poor, I hope all their dreams come true, just pointing out some things that I have noticed.
> Ask a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer.
> jud
Come on Jud you can generalize and answer the question with regards to the example provided, humans do have common traits generally speaking.
The acquisition of wealth or lack and how it is handled of is only the result of something much deeper than all seem to be considering, a common shortcoming in modern America. The effect is usually the only thing considered because it is easy to see, determining the root cause takes more work, so band aids are the norm, and problems usually never get solved at the root cause. This discussion about having money or not and how is may cause greed is looking at a result, not the cause. I stay with my ethics and values position, even though I recognize that those things, are the result of something deeper.
jud
> 1. Who is more greedy rich people or poor people?
Well, recent statistics about the concentration of wealth ("the 1%") would indicate that "rich people" certainly know how to consolidate their wealth.
> 2 What causes more evil and illicit activities, wealth, or lack of money?
I'd venture to guess that statistics regarding evil and illicit activities would show little or no corellation with wealth statistics.
> I think most rich people work hard and invest in education & appreciating assets, understand business, and most of all solve other peoples problems, most see what is possible and do not stay focused on what is not possible.
>
> They have a vision, try it, get feedback, adjust, try again, repeat until successful.
>
> The richer someone is the more generous they can afford to be, Gates & Buffet have given away billions...with a b.
>
> I am not and advocate for rich or poor, I hope all their dreams come true, just pointing out some things that I have noticed.
I have read some of your "philosophical" posts and have developed a respect for your opinion. But.....come on. I don't know about this one.
First, we all know that no poor person can donate billions with a b....because they don't have it.
Second, you paint a beautiful picture of a good, hard-working rich guy. I doubt that even 1% of rich people fitl that description. In my opinion, most have a huge ability to "b.s." (making you think they are good guys) and most have to be dishonest, have inherited the money, and/or make all their money off the backs of hard-working people.
The successful con man is the one you believe and trust. The bad guys that look and act like bad guys have much more trouble stealing from you (ie are not as successful).
I could paint an equally beautiful picture of a good blue-collar soul who works hard to feed his family, put his kids through school, and is generous with whatever he does have.
> > Bad analogy, poor inference. To equate this, it's akin to the $500 guy loaning a nickel - there's your no big deal.
>
> Our analogy's are in agreement.
No they're not. $50 from the $500 guy represents 10% of his money total. $50 from the $500,000 guy represents 0.01% of his money total. The fact that he ($500 guy)would loan that much money out of his smaller amount seems to indicate he is in fact not greedy. If $500,000 guy were to loan $50,000, he'd likely not shrug off the debt so easy either.
> > > Bad analogy, poor inference. To equate this, it's akin to the $500 guy loaning a nickel - there's your no big deal.
> >
> > Our analogy's are in agreement.
>
> No they're not. $50 from the $500 guy represents 10% of his money total. $50 from the $500,000 guy represents 0.01% of his money total. The fact that he ($500 guy)would loan that much money out of his smaller amount seems to indicate he is in fact not greedy. If $500,000 guy were to loan $50,000, he'd likely not shrug off the debt so easy either.
butch, your analogy has the $500 guy loaning out a nickel, my analogy has the $500,000 guy loaning out $50.....realistically the same general dynamic, thus our analogy's are in agreement.
