GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 332,801
Threads: 115,742
Posts: 2,208,451
Welcome to our newest member, znatlietopz5629
» Online Users: 4,810
0 members and 4,810 guests
No Members online
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 10-13-2011, 05:30 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD Alum View Post
Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.
OK, this explains the disconnect - I wasn't saying those "top 50 or 100" lacked skills at all, or that they are there because something was 'given' to them. I said they all had broadly or roughly similar skill sets (which you acknowledge yourself), and that the list completely lacked other, important skill sets that are often found in the smartest individuals in the world (who generally make lots of money, but not the "FU money" of the titans of industry).

Anyway, you make my entire point for me - if the skills are comparable to Nobel winners (which I'd say that, in terms of uniqueness and ability, is largely correct), then there's something endemic to the system that doesn't allow Nobel winners onto the list. Many scientists have "irreplaceable skills" as well, and aren't in the 1% at all. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, so it's bad language.

Also, don't lay "capitalism" out as an argument - it's reductionist at best, since government interference in the marketplace is one of the key issues for both sides here (and I think both sides are wrong, for whatever that's worth).

My argument was in 2 parts, which you have needlessly conflated. I'm not claiming the top 50 Americans got there by heredity. I AM claiming a large number of the top 3,000,000 (1%) Americans had advantages to get where they are. Many worked hard, too - the "lazy millionaire heiress" is not my target here.

Last edited by KSig RC; 10-13-2011 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Wall Street Movie FSUZeta Entertainment 0 09-27-2010 08:44 AM
Wall Street Journal article banditone Greek Life 3 11-13-2009 01:54 PM
Iffy 2008 outlook for Wall Street PhiGam News & Politics 4 01-03-2008 11:39 PM
Wall Street Journal help!!! 33girl Chit Chat 8 02-10-2004 06:42 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.