Objectionable? No, but take a look about how much money Bill has given as a function of years. It's a delta function.
Without doing it and just guessing he's been making money a lot longer than he's been giving it, I still don't see anything wrong.
I believe the point is that its analog not digital.
Too much of either is bad, but the optimal mix is really the question.
You said "perfectly run collectivism."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
If the government has to regulate sale of product then you don't have collectivism, you have regulated capitalism, a.k.a. individualism.
Regulated capitalism is a form of mixed economy, which is therefore a form of soft socialism or "socialist elements in the economy" ergo a form of collectivism. The government as a construct of individuals clustered together in strength and power delegating authority to a group, that construct therefore is not "individual" it is a collective.
Furthermore, specifically Americans have an "extroverted" group culture where individual achievement is how we define people in groups, flip that to Confucian cultures which have an "introverted" group culture where the identity is more focused on the group.
Objectionable? No, but take a look about how much money Bill has given as a function of years. It's a delta function.
I believe the point is that its analog not digital.
Too much of either is bad, but the optimal mix is really the question.
It's specifically delegating authority. Where you have a spiral of leadership and collectivism down to the individual. There's different format people offer, such as with family.
Fascinating topic to a degree when you consider corporations, ranging from people like Steve Jobs to more traditional top down oriented companies. Add in comparative studies between how foreign and domestic firms function is another degree of challenge in finding the "balance."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Regulated capitalism is a form of mixed economy, which is therefore a form of soft socialism or "socialist elements in the economy" ergo a form of collectivism. The government as a construct of individuals clustered together in strength and power delegating authority to a group, that construct therefore is not "individual" it is a collective.
The only thing that involves a collective in capitalism is the regulation, which seeks to protects individuals, not the collective.
I'm aware we're a mixed economy, I don't need another one of Captain Morgan's famously unnecessary history lessons.
Furthermore, specifically Americans have an "extroverted" group culture where individual achievement is how we define people in groups, flip that to Confucian cultures which have an "introverted" group culture where the identity is more focused on the group.
Your point?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Without doing it and just guessing he's been making money a lot longer than he's been giving it, I still don't see anything wrong.
Try "he did not give ANYTHING until a few years ago."
To say "our society rewards the charitable, look at Bill Gates" just shows a complete lack of understanding about what Bill was doing when society was rewarding him. Mainly, crushing competition and fighting anti-trust laws. It was only around the time he realized he could not spend all of his money in his lifetime and he did not like the people that would inherent his money that he started giving it away.
NOW Bill is a very charitable person, but he got to where he is by being selfish.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
He was selfish and then had an event that changed who he was, and is now charitable. I think that's great, but to say he made his money being charitable is just silly.
He was selfish and then had an event that changed who he was, and is now charitable. I think that's great, but to say he made his money being charitable is just silly.
You don't get rewarded for being charitable, in terms of money. So obviously you can't make money by being charitable, I never said he did. But how was he selfish? I mean, he started a business with his idea and became very successful. Is that selfish?
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Call Bill's past actions what you want, 'selfish', 'shrewd', 'Scrooge like', 'Good bussness.'
They where not charitable until very recently.
Ok, so he was saying they are charitable in response to you saying selfish people do better in an individualistic system. Then you said they were charitable after they got their money so they didn't achieve their success by being charitable. Correct me if this is not what is going on.
Well, I disagree with you (regarding your original point, I do agree that they were charitable after they became rich). You can be plenty charitable and still become successful in this system. I mean, you can be charitable while building up a small business. You don't have to be selfish, you can do things for your own self interest, and at the same time do charitable things.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
You can be plenty charitable and still become successful in this system.
Name some super successful people in America like that. Show me someone at the top who is as you describe.
(I don't know if there is one; I'm asking since you seem to claim you do know. I can't think of anyone. You can do 'alright' and be a nice guy, but to make it to the TOP?)
Name some super successful people in America like that. Show me someone at the top who is as you describe.
(I don't know if there is one; I'm asking since you seem to claim you do know. I can't think of anyone. You can do 'alright' and be a nice guy, but to make it to the TOP?)
I don't know. My point is that they are not connected. You can start your own business and at the same time be charitable. What is stopping you?
And BTW, what is the point of this? If you become successful, like Gates, and then give back. What is the big deal? That's actually way better than trying to be charitable and you can't. Because then you do something great, like Gates, and employ tons of people, and donate even more money to charities than you would have.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
And I am asking you for some evidence of that "point."
If they are not connected you should be able to give me an example.
No big deal. I was just correcting what I saw as a misunderstanding.
Certainly he is in a better position to do good NOW, and I am happy he chose to.
Well how about some evidence that they are? That is your point, isn't it? I can't really provide conclusive evidence of two things that are unconnected, becasue well, they are unconnected. I mean, what is stopping you from running a small business and donating to charity. Time can also be used charitably.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
I gave thanks to God because He, listened to and answered the prayers of the rightous and, ignored those from those Godless heathern bastards.
To say "our society rewards the charitable, look at Bill Gates" just shows a complete lack of understanding about what Bill was doing when society was rewarding him. Mainly, crushing competition and fighting anti-trust laws. It was only around the time he realized he could not spend all of his money in his lifetime and he did not like the people that would inherent his money that he started giving it away.
NOW Bill is a very charitable person, but he got to where he is by being selfish.
And by that I meant "when it works the best" not "in it's purest form."
Bill is personification of the American dream.
People want to be rich but they don't realize it's the same set of problems just with higher price tags.
If I had as much money as he does, I'd keep what needed and spread the rest.
See^
That's how its done. I was pretty sure there had to be a counter example. Now, you, Peter, will tell me that Oprah is the rule and I will tell you she is the exception, and we can agree to disagree or whatever.
You're saying I'm wrong; I am not saying you're wrong, but I am being skeptical. To that end, I am asking you for some evidence showing why I'm wrong.
If you wish to prove me wrong, get some proof:
See^
That's how its done. I was pretty sure there had to be a counter example. Now, you, Peter, will tell me that Oprah is the rule and I will tell you she is the exception, and we can agree to disagree or whatever.
Correct, time is stopping you.
Ummm... the Nazis were not atheist nor heathens.
My evidence is that there is nothing stopping you. If you don't have enough time, then you could donate money. What is your reason for being skeptical? Do you not think I could start a business and at the same time do something for charity? I can tell you when I was living with my parents, every Thanksgiving my dad went out to a soup kitchen, and worked their all morning. He and my mom constantly donated old clothes, and old toys to the local good will store. I remember they donated money a couple times to a foundation that helped soldier's familys. And during Christmas time, they always did something charitable with our neighbors or locally. They had their own out of the house business, that they started, it was very successful, we never really had any financial issues after it got running. Yet they had plenty of time and some money to help others. Is that good enough evidence for you?
They ran their own successful business, and were also charitable.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Nope, it's evidence; see my story. If there is nothing stopping someone who has a business or something from donating to charity, then they are fully capable of doing so. Just like me. I am not financially successful, by any means. Actually, the opposite. But I could go be doing something charitable with my time right now, instead of this.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
Skullclamp cannot really be considered a best for it was banned upon release. I think the best card/most broken card on that list has to be Bloodbraid Elf. That card was too busted.
So your saying for someone to be considered successful, they have to be part of that percent?
In the context we are talking about for this discussion, yes, yes I am.
You could define it for having a loving family or some other subjective quality, but that shorta deludes the discussion because I could say "well being 'successful' means 'working in a community for the greater good'" or something.
Or I could say that "well in a Collectivism or Individualism you can have a loving family either way, so it's a wash."
I'm pretty sure you can achieve the more subjective version of 'successful' if you're in Socialist France or Capitalistic USA.
Wouldn't you agree?
We would have won anyway. Have some faith in the troops. Try "he did not give ANYTHING until a few years ago."
Arguably, no. The odds were not in our favor for D-Day, and the hierarchy of German command helped considerably in combat in WWII in general. Similarly, when Russia was invading the middle east, they followed a similar hierarchy and got rickrolled, and they had superior military forces.
To say "our society rewards the charitable, look at Bill Gates" just shows a complete lack of understanding about what Bill was doing when society was rewarding him. Mainly, crushing competition and fighting anti-trust laws. It was only around the time he realized he could not spend all of his money in his lifetime and he did not like the people that would inherent his money that he started giving it away.
I'll be honest, I didn't read the posts preceding that one, so I thought you were saying there weren't charitable people by nature of capitalism.
NOW Bill is a very charitable person, but he got to where he is by being selfish.
I still don't see anything objectionable about this. I really know little about Bill Gates' rise to riches, but based on what you've said so far I find nothing wrong with it.
And by that I meant "when it works the best" not "in it's purest form."
Write with more transparency then...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Then what is a group of people who systematically follow their leader orders, remove any and all signs of normal religions and, replace them with a religion in which Adolf Hitler is lord and god?
I'm pretty sure that all classifies them as "Godless, heathern bastards."
You may want to hit your history books again, bro.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~ As You Are, I Once Was; As I Am, You Will Be ~
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As in D-Day again, the recipies optimal mix includes how Germany failed themselves by not allowing generals and field units to take the initiative.
Axis is to Yang as Allies are to Yin.
We really can't have one without the other as without one the other dies.
Without doing it and just guessing he's been making money a lot longer than he's been giving it, I still don't see anything wrong.
You said "perfectly run collectivism."
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Regulated capitalism is a form of mixed economy, which is therefore a form of soft socialism or "socialist elements in the economy" ergo a form of collectivism. The government as a construct of individuals clustered together in strength and power delegating authority to a group, that construct therefore is not "individual" it is a collective.
Furthermore, specifically Americans have an "extroverted" group culture where individual achievement is how we define people in groups, flip that to Confucian cultures which have an "introverted" group culture where the identity is more focused on the group.
It's specifically delegating authority. Where you have a spiral of leadership and collectivism down to the individual. There's different format people offer, such as with family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
Fascinating topic to a degree when you consider corporations, ranging from people like Steve Jobs to more traditional top down oriented companies. Add in comparative studies between how foreign and domestic firms function is another degree of challenge in finding the "balance."
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The only thing that involves a collective in capitalism is the regulation, which seeks to protects individuals, not the collective.
I'm aware we're a mixed economy, I don't need another one of Captain Morgan's famously unnecessary history lessons.
Your point?
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
We would have won anyway. Have some faith in the troops. Try "he did not give ANYTHING until a few years ago."
To say "our society rewards the charitable, look at Bill Gates" just shows a complete lack of understanding about what Bill was doing when society was rewarding him. Mainly, crushing competition and fighting anti-trust laws. It was only around the time he realized he could not spend all of his money in his lifetime and he did not like the people that would inherent his money that he started giving it away.
NOW Bill is a very charitable person, but he got to where he is by being selfish.
And by that I meant "when it works the best" not "in it's purest form."
He was selfish and then had an event that changed who he was, and is now charitable. I think that's great, but to say he made his money being charitable is just silly.
You don't get rewarded for being charitable, in terms of money. So obviously you can't make money by being charitable, I never said he did. But how was he selfish? I mean, he started a business with his idea and became very successful. Is that selfish?
And I was not responding to YOU.
This is the statement in question:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6106540&postcount=42
Call Bill's past actions what you want, 'selfish', 'shrewd', 'Scrooge like', 'Good bussness.'
They where not charitable until very recently.
Ok, so he was saying they are charitable in response to you saying selfish people do better in an individualistic system. Then you said they were charitable after they got their money so they didn't achieve their success by being charitable. Correct me if this is not what is going on.
Well, I disagree with you (regarding your original point, I do agree that they were charitable after they became rich). You can be plenty charitable and still become successful in this system. I mean, you can be charitable while building up a small business. You don't have to be selfish, you can do things for your own self interest, and at the same time do charitable things.
Name some super successful people in America like that. Show me someone at the top who is as you describe.
(I don't know if there is one; I'm asking since you seem to claim you do know. I can't think of anyone. You can do 'alright' and be a nice guy, but to make it to the TOP?)
I don't know. My point is that they are not connected. You can start your own business and at the same time be charitable. What is stopping you?
And BTW, what is the point of this? If you become successful, like Gates, and then give back. What is the big deal? That's actually way better than trying to be charitable and you can't. Because then you do something great, like Gates, and employ tons of people, and donate even more money to charities than you would have.
And I am asking you for some evidence of that "point."
If they are not connected you should be able to give me an example.
No big deal. I was just correcting what I saw as a misunderstanding.
Certainly he is in a better position to do good NOW, and I am happy he chose to.
Spam.Reversed.Well how about some evidence that they are? That is your point, isn't it? I can't really provide conclusive evidence of two things that are unconnected, becasue well, they are unconnected. I mean, what is stopping you from running a small business and donating to charity. Time can also be used charitably.
Oh yes my friend, faith was not the thing...
I gave thanks to God because He, listened to and answered the prayers of the rightous and, ignored those from those Godless heathern bastards.
Bill is personification of the American dream.
People want to be rich but they don't realize it's the same set of problems just with higher price tags.
If I had as much money as he does, I'd keep what needed and spread the rest.
You're saying I'm wrong; I am not saying you're wrong, but I am being skeptical. To that end, I am asking you for some evidence showing why I'm wrong.
If you wish to prove me wrong, get some proof:
See^
That's how its done. I was pretty sure there had to be a counter example. Now, you, Peter, will tell me that Oprah is the rule and I will tell you she is the exception, and we can agree to disagree or whatever.
Correct, time is stopping you.
Ummm... the Nazis were not atheist nor heathens.
My evidence is that there is nothing stopping you. If you don't have enough time, then you could donate money. What is your reason for being skeptical? Do you not think I could start a business and at the same time do something for charity? I can tell you when I was living with my parents, every Thanksgiving my dad went out to a soup kitchen, and worked their all morning. He and my mom constantly donated old clothes, and old toys to the local good will store. I remember they donated money a couple times to a foundation that helped soldier's familys. And during Christmas time, they always did something charitable with our neighbors or locally. They had their own out of the house business, that they started, it was very successful, we never really had any financial issues after it got running. Yet they had plenty of time and some money to help others. Is that good enough evidence for you?
They ran their own successful business, and were also charitable.
Is you father in the upper 3%?
If so, yes; if not, no.
However, I did find Oprah to be a good counterexample, ty dcartist.
Nope, it's evidence; see my story. If there is nothing stopping someone who has a business or something from donating to charity, then they are fully capable of doing so. Just like me. I am not financially successful, by any means. Actually, the opposite. But I could go be doing something charitable with my time right now, instead of this.
So only the top 3% of Americans are successful?
Read the Prisoner's dilemma page again. We are looking for OPTIMAL strategies.
So, assuming a bell curve, yes +5% or so.
So your saying for someone to be considered successful, they have to be part of that percent?
In the context we are talking about for this discussion, yes, yes I am.
You could define it for having a loving family or some other subjective quality, but that shorta deludes the discussion because I could say "well being 'successful' means 'working in a community for the greater good'" or something.
Or I could say that "well in a Collectivism or Individualism you can have a loving family either way, so it's a wash."
I'm pretty sure you can achieve the more subjective version of 'successful' if you're in Socialist France or Capitalistic USA.
Wouldn't you agree?
Arguably, no. The odds were not in our favor for D-Day, and the hierarchy of German command helped considerably in combat in WWII in general. Similarly, when Russia was invading the middle east, they followed a similar hierarchy and got rickrolled, and they had superior military forces.
I'll be honest, I didn't read the posts preceding that one, so I thought you were saying there weren't charitable people by nature of capitalism.
I still don't see anything objectionable about this. I really know little about Bill Gates' rise to riches, but based on what you've said so far I find nothing wrong with it.
Write with more transparency then...
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Um... Want to try again, my friend?
Then what is a group of people who systematically follow their leader orders, remove any and all signs of normal religions and, replace them with a religion in which Adolf Hitler is lord and god?
I'm pretty sure that all classifies them as "Godless, heathern bastards."
You may want to hit your history books again, bro.