PDA

View Full Version : When is enough money....enough?


OrangeOne
11-22-2007, 03:50 PM
Someone in another thread brought up an excellent point - why aren't Federer and Sampras playing these exhibition matches for charity, instead of their own fat wallets? Both have won 40 million USD from playing tennis, both have earned 2 or 5 or 10 times that from endorsements, both are undoubtedly set for life and 100 lives after that.

By playing for a charity, not only could they have used their celeb power to find venues and promoters for free, but they would also have brought massive awareness to a charity as well. The net outcome would be millions of dollars to charity from ticket sales & tv advertising, and then millions of dollars saved in advertising for the charity.

Last night on Letterman I saw Bill Clinton, advertising his new book 'Giving'. Great idea, write a book about charitable donations, increase awareness, encourage people to give. Fantastic. I then spent 5 mins scratching around the web to find out, let's say, hopefully confirm the hopefully obvious - that he would be doing this for nothing, giving his time to this project. And on the Bill Clinton Foundation website, I find this:

President Clinton is dedicating a portion of the book's proceeds to charities and nonprofits that are doing their part to change the world.

Disgusting.

When is enough money....enough?

D-man
11-22-2007, 04:50 PM
Great point, Orange. I really couldn't agree with you more. If only the "selfish" gene could be eradicated, huh.

Tennis-Chris
11-22-2007, 05:07 PM
Do a little research on the charities these guys run and/or support. Each of them gives millions of dollars a year to charity. While they may charge for the exhibitions they are putting a portion of their total earnings toward a charity of their own choosing.

That issue aside, just because they earn a lot of money why should they work for free. That thought process just trickles down - Why doesn't the person making $100,000 per year give more to people who make less and really need it? Why doesn't the student with the 4.0 GPA give a point or two to the student who is not doing as well?

Success in one arena or another does not make a person greedy. With regard to President Clinton - I hardly consider his actions charitable but I applaud his effort. Rupert Murdoch is charitable - Net assets $36 Billion. Donations to charity - $35 Billion.

Bill and Melinda Gates; Approximately $58 Billion in assets - $48 Billion donated to their charity.

OrangeOne
11-22-2007, 05:26 PM
Do a little research on the charities these guys run and/or support. Each of them gives millions of dollars a year to charity. While they may charge for the exhibitions they are putting a portion of their total earnings toward a charity of their own choosing.

I found the sentence (that still grates me) that I quoted in the OP above from a sub-site of the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton is thus, in my book, profiteering from a charity. He's having his book advertised by his charity, and not giving all of the returns to that (or another) charity.

When it comes to Clinton, I'm temporarily disappointed enough to be beyond caring what other charities he supports, I'm sure I'll mellow over time.

For Fed and Sampras - it just disappoints me. Tennis has made them unimaginably rich, and now they're simply using tennis outside the formal structure to earn more. When is enough enough? Clearly earning $40 million isn't enough....

That issue aside, just because they earn a lot of money why should they work for free. That thought process just trickles down - Why doesn't the person making $100,000 per year give more to people who make less and really need it?

They already do - formally in the mode of taxes, but that doesn't count as it's regulated.

Informally, well I hope anyone in a good situation earning 100k is giving plenty, and that's part of why I wrote this post/thread. someone earning 10k can give $10 and change someone's life in a bigger way than many would ever imagine.

Lakoste
11-22-2007, 08:53 PM
When is enough money....enough?

I think if you earn over 10k a year, you should give everything over that to charity. If you don't, you're a horrible person.









:rolleyes:

CanadianChic
11-22-2007, 09:01 PM
I found the sentence (that still grates me) that I quoted in the OP above from a sub-site of the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton is thus, in my book, profiteering from a charity. He's having his book advertised by his charity, and not giving all of the returns to that (or another) charity.

When it comes to Clinton, I'm temporarily disappointed enough to be beyond caring what other charities he supports, I'm sure I'll mellow over time.

For Fed and Sampras - it just disappoints me. Tennis has made them unimaginably rich, and now they're simply using tennis outside the formal structure to earn more. When is enough enough? Clearly earning $40 million isn't enough....



They already do - formally in the mode of taxes, but that doesn't count as it's regulated.

Informally, well I hope anyone in a good situation earning 100k is giving plenty, and that's part of why I wrote this post/thread. someone earning 10k can give $10 and change someone's life in a bigger way than many would ever imagine.

$10,000 a year is way below the poverty line OO. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children (and themselves) at that salary.

AM28143
11-22-2007, 09:22 PM
People always try to earn as much money as possible because their needs are unlimited. Therefore, Federer and Sampras, despite earning 100s of millions in their careers, still try to earn more money to fullfill their endless needs.

Tennis-Chris
11-22-2007, 09:28 PM
When is enough money....enough?

I think if you earn over 10k a year, you should give everything over that to charity. If you don't, you're a horrible person.









:rolleyes:

Here, here. I have my checkbook and pen out, who should I send the $15 check to?:mrgreen:

Ano
11-22-2007, 10:13 PM
$10,000 a year is way below the poverty line OO. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children (and themselves) at that salary.

Hi CC, that guideline is certainly not applicable in Indonesia.

In Indonesia, someone who makes US$10,000 a year is certainly way above the poverty line. For example, US$ 10,000 a year is the average income of a small Bank sub branch manager.

If I'm not mistaken, the definition of poverty in Indonesia is someone who makes no more than US$ 2 per day.

jhhachamp
11-22-2007, 10:52 PM
I think if you earn over 10k a year, you should give everything over that to charity. If you don't, you're a horrible person.

I pay more than $10k a year just in rent!

007
11-23-2007, 07:05 AM
I spend > $10K a year on natural gut........just kidding

10s talk
11-23-2007, 07:41 AM
Federer and Sampras should have let other pros win the majors !

How many is enough ? They are both greedy !

spiritboy3
11-23-2007, 07:44 AM
When is enough money....enough?

I think if you earn over 10k a year, you should give everything over that to charity. If you don't, you're a horrible person.









:rolleyes:

are u joking 10k a year hav to give charity thats like 800 dollars or so a month how is that enuf lol

Klatu Verata Necktie
11-23-2007, 07:57 AM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

origmarm
11-23-2007, 09:40 AM
Your lifestyle expands to your income. It also shrinks to it. You learn this in my line of work where your income is very variable. I learnt it the hard way.

I have a policy of giving a percentage to charity, the more I make the more they get. I think if I was ever in the kind of position that these guys are in I would have to have a serious sit down and think to myself though about what kind of a person I was. But then I thought that years ago and it didn't happen, the percentage stayed the same but I just bought more stuff with the rest. That said it wasn't even close to their situation. I'm a different person now though so I think things wouldn't be the same again.

What do you think Orange, what is the magic number? For some reason I always had 8 digits in my head.

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-23-2007, 10:20 AM
I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!! Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

ollinger
11-23-2007, 10:29 AM
When people choose to do things in their lives is their own business. Warren Buffet amassed about 38 billion dollars in his investing career and then not long ago donated about 35 billion of it to the Gates Foundation, which is very judicious in supporting excellent causes. I think people in their 20s and 30s, like Fed and Sampras, may wish to hang on to their money until later in life, at which point they may, like Buffet, do more noble things with it. Easy to understand when you've essentially exhausted most of your earning power with maybe 50 years left in your life. None of us knows exactly how much each of these guys gives to charity. We know Fed gives his time (more precious to him than money, perhaps) to South African children's causes. These guys earned their money, they didn't steal it. If they want to hold on to it for a few years, that's okay with me.

LuckyR
11-23-2007, 10:31 AM
balls;1898020']I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!! Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

Huuhh??? I seriously doubt it! Especially if you mean by "profits", the amount of money above what they need to subsist.

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-23-2007, 10:33 AM
When is enough money....enough?

I think if you earn over 10k a year, you should give everything over that to charity. If you don't, you're a horrible person.









:rolleyes:
You probably think that Stalin and Lenin were great people, don't you! Besides, making someone give money or otherwise isn't really charity, is it?

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-23-2007, 10:58 AM
Huuhh??? I seriously doubt it! Especially if you mean by "profits", the amount of money above what they need to subsist.
Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make- Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual. I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment. Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work. I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

LuckyR
11-23-2007, 03:45 PM
balls;1898071']Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make-

Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual.

I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment.

Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work.

I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

Hhmmmm, where to begin? Where to begin...

First, please show me where I claimed to "know what anyone else needs or deserves to make".

In answer to your question: Yes I am clearly claiming to be God :roll:. I am glad you alone have figured this out, you must be quite intuitive.

I completely understand your "appauling" ignorance.

As to Communism, in my post, I quite plainly noted in footnotes#s 3 & 5 many examples of very successful Communist states, so you are definitely off base there...

I will have to defer to your expertise in "mediocraty", since you are much more experienced in that than myself.

35ft6
11-23-2007, 04:03 PM
When you're not worrying about money any more.

But for me, maybe enough money would be when I can live a comfortable upper-middle class life without having to work any more if I so choose.

tbini87
11-23-2007, 07:54 PM
each person will have their own thoughts and personal feelings on the subject. i don't think you can give a dollar amount and say that is "Enough". some people need only enough to survive, while others will never have enough.

i personally feel that pro athletes, celebrities, etc, are way overpaid and should not be making anywhere near the amount of money they pull in. however, i don't blame them for agreeing to massive contracts or anything. they are doing what they do, and are bettering their lives.

tbini87
11-23-2007, 07:58 PM
a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

fed_the_savior
11-23-2007, 08:53 PM
a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

important point.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

richw76
11-24-2007, 09:03 AM
important point.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

We live in a mostly merit based society. In a merit based society you are mainly paid according to how easily you are replaced, and how important you are to making others money.

Actors and athletes make alot of money because the products that they produce make alot of money. If sports franchise owners could build stadiums, obtain TV contracts and sellout stadiums with out having athletes they WOULD. Now since the owners are making HUNDREDS of millions, don't the players deserve their 20%. Same with Actors Tom Cruise/Denzel Washington don't make 20 Million a movie because execs like them and want to make them rich. It's because they know that the EXACT same movie will make a minimum of 20 million more with them, and probably much more.

I'm going to explain why being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

richw76
11-24-2007, 09:10 AM
Being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

I would be interested if they charge the same amount for a 100% charity event as they do for the prince of dubai or whatever. I'm guessing No but it would be interesting.

There's so much truth to the old saying you get what you pay for. As long as the tournament is paying something for services the person has an actual moral and contractual obligation to fulfill his commitments. This is a good situation for everyone also. When you are being paid, for most people you have a different mindset.

I work in IT. And if I do something free for a friend or the church or whatever it s' a different feeling than if I'm getting paid, even if I'm charging 1/3 of a fair market price.

Leelord337
11-24-2007, 01:52 PM
When you don't have to go Black Friday shopping for the Deals you know you're well off

tbini87
11-24-2007, 04:32 PM
^^^ according to that i am not well off... but i already knew that!

CanadianChic
11-24-2007, 04:42 PM
I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

richw76
11-24-2007, 06:49 PM
I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

I would like 150-300Mil, after taxes. Rich but not so reach as to attract unwanted attention. I would be the random anonymous rich guy, and yeah I'm a greedy , bad person. :-)

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 06:44 PM
$10,000 a year is way below the poverty line OO. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children (and themselves) at that salary.

I mentioned giving $10. I would contend that there are many people (most) people earning that little that still donate $10 here or there, or maybe in total. Many (very) poor people go to (and support) churches and other local bodies, etc etc.

Anyways - my point was perhaps more that giving $10 can change someone's life, especially in countries that are not as wealthy as canada / america / australia.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 06:46 PM
People always try to earn as much money as possible because their needs are unlimited. Therefore, Federer and Sampras, despite earning 100s of millions in their careers, still try to earn more money to fullfill their endless needs.

You've messed it up, tbini gets it right below.

a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

Agreed. We need food, water, shelter, love, and probably a few other things. The dollar value of these things required for subsistence, even in western society, is quite little.

The dollar value of our wants, on the other hand....

35ft6
11-25-2007, 06:50 PM
important point.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your income did you give to "those kids," say, last year?

35ft6
11-25-2007, 06:55 PM
You've messed it up, tbini gets it right below.



Agreed. We need food, water, shelter, love, and probably a few other things. The dollar value of these things required for subsistence, even in western society, is quite little.. In western culture, and in the USA in particular, the economy is fueled by unhappiness. Corporations strive to keep us continually unhappy, incomplete, not fully realized, so that we're always ready to buy the next car, outfit, shoe, electronic gadget, pill, workout machine, tennis racket, vacation, or whatever, that promises to make us who we were truly meant to be. In the end, the most important thing in the world is having honest, meaningful, loving relationships with people. That's the only thing that can ever make you truly happy, but even there, I think the USA sort of works against you. If you're over 20 and living with your family, you're a loser. Now if you post on Craigslist and decide to live with a complete stranger, that's okay, but god forbid you decide to continue living with the people you love and trust the most in the world. We live in a very unnatural world.

AM28143
11-25-2007, 07:00 PM
You've messed it up, tbini gets it right below.


If we need what we want, isn't it a need. Where do you draw the line?

35ft6
11-25-2007, 07:02 PM
If we need what we want, isn't it a need.Not if you're older than 10. "Mommy, I need a Playstation."

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:02 PM
We live in a mostly merit based society. In a merit based society you are mainly paid according to how easily you are replaced, and how important you are to making others money.

Ahh, yes, you. I'm so glad you replied to this topic, I'm sure based on past comments you have so much to bring to it :neutral:.

We may live in a merit based society... those of us in western society AND those of us well above the poverty line. Those of us that can afford computers to have this discussion on, those of us who are guaranteed that there's an evening meal.

Open your eyes wider, drive that Corvette further than the local detailing shop...

Actors and athletes make alot of money because the products that they produce make alot of money.

Yup, I understand all of that, although I appreciate that you were mostly replying to others...

I'm going to explain why being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

And you go to another separate post. Curious.

Being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

I would be interested if they charge the same amount for a 100% charity event as they do for the prince of dubai or whatever. I'm guessing No but it would be interesting.

There's so much truth to the old saying you get what you pay for. As long as the tournament is paying something for services the person has an actual moral and contractual obligation to fulfill his commitments. This is a good situation for everyone also. When you are being paid, for most people you have a different mindset.

I work in IT. And if I do something free for a friend or the church or whatever it s' a different feeling than if I'm getting paid, even if I'm charging 1/3 of a fair market price.

^^ There, you do a very bad job of explaining your own point, and you make very little headway into "explaining why being paid for charity events is good for both sides". Also, perhaps curiously, I'm not even sure how that relates to my (or anyone else's) points.

This was a paid, non-charity exhibition.

I contended I would have liked it to be a non-paid, completely charity exhibition.

Neither of the above cases is a "paid, charity event".

As to your point of approaching work differently if you're being paid for it...well that's indeed up to your own moral conscience. As for you doing work "for the church"... I just can't bring myself to touch that one!

I would like 150-300Mil, after taxes. Rich but not so reach as to attract unwanted attention. I would be the random anonymous rich guy, and yeah I'm a greedy , bad person. :-)

The sad, sad thing is not that you're greedy, nor are bad, it's that I'm not even sure you're joking.

AM28143
11-25-2007, 07:06 PM
Not if you're older than 10. "Mommy, I need a Playstation."

Technically all we need is air, water and food. However, it is criminal not to provide more. Therefore, how does society define what someone needs?

Needs are subjective, just like wants.

fed_the_savior
11-25-2007, 07:12 PM
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your income did you give to "those kids," say, last year?

Did I make you feel guilty or something? That's a bit tasteless of you.

Anyway, if I was generous or if I was stingy, it doesn't change the truth of what I posted.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:13 PM
In western culture, and in the USA in particular, the economy is fueled by unhappiness. Corporations strive to keep us continually unhappy, incomplete, not fully realized, so that we're always ready to buy the next car, outfit, shoe, electronic gadget, pill, workout machine, tennis racket, vacation, or whatever, that promises to make us who we were truly meant to be. In the end, the most important thing in the world is having honest, meaningful, loving relationships with people. That's the only thing that can ever make you truly happy, but even there, I think the USA sort of works against you. If you're over 20 and living with your family, you're a loser. Now if you post on Craigslist and decide to live with a complete stranger, that's okay, but god forbid you decide to continue living with the people you love and trust the most in the world. We live in a very unnatural world.

Thanks for posting something, anything, to give me a little bit of faith in the people choosing to post in this thread. And it's a good perspective you have, we're in a keeping-up-with-the-joneses society, driving by mandated corporate greed.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:18 PM
And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

^^Sorry for missing your post, it too gives me some faith. Great point.

Someone once said to Hingis about her hard life, and she surprised me and gave a pretty upfront reply, saying her life wasn't hard. Lots of sleep, training (but there's only so much you can do), staying in nice hotels, eating great food, etc etc. At the very very top, pro tennis isn't hard work.

Anyway, if I was generous or if I was stingy, it doesn't change the truth of what I posted.

Yeah, I agree here too.

35ft6: Why did you feel the personal question would be relevant?

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-25-2007, 07:20 PM
Hhmmmm, where to begin? Where to begin...

First, please show me where I claimed to "know what anyone else needs or deserves to make".

In answer to your question: Yes I am clearly claiming to be God :roll:. I am glad you alone have figured this out, you must be quite intuitive.

I completely understand your "appauling" ignorance.

As to Communism, in my post, I quite plainly noted in footnotes#s 3 & 5 many examples of very successful Communist states, so you are definitely off base there...

I will have to defer to your expertise in "mediocraty", since you are much more experienced in that than myself.

I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking. As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.
You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!

35ft6
11-25-2007, 07:21 PM
Technically all we need is air, water and food. However, it is criminal not to provide more. Therefore, how does society define what someone needs? Nobody brought up criminality.Needs are subjective, just like wants. Needs are not subjective in the way that it was used by the poster who first brought it up. Needs, in that case, is defined as something without which you can't live for long. Yes, if you want to change the definition then it becomes more subjective, and a person may in fact need a solid gold toilet.Did I make you feel guilty or something? That's a bit tasteless of you. That's what I thought.Anyway, if I was generous or if I was stingy, it doesn't change the truth of what I posted.Kind of true.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:26 PM
I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

I'm somewhat shocked... at the above, and at you, and many others completely missing the point of my thread.

My question was mostly rhetorical in shock at how insanely greedy some people are, I wasn't actually expecting you and rich76 and others to lay claim to a dollar figure.

It seems greed (on insane levels) is becoming exceptionally pervasive.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:29 PM
balls;1898071']Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make- Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual. I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment. Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work. I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

Apart from having the grammatical skills of a 10 (7?) year old, you really haven't said much in the above....other than that you'd probably get along well with rich76!

You both have the "work / effort = earning potential" attitude to life, which is great, except you forget that work & effort only yields rewards in areas of opportunity and relative prosperity.

35ft6
11-25-2007, 07:29 PM
Yeah, I agree here too.

35ft6: Why did you feel the personal question would be relevant?Well, it seemed like he had some pretty strong feelings on this subject, was wondering, just out of curiosity, if he felt strongly enough to live by his words. If he feels this strongly and even HE doesn't give till it hurts, not sure why he would be incredulous as to why other people wouldn't.

OrangeOne
11-25-2007, 07:37 PM
balls;1902361']I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking.

Hmmm. Can you not see LuckyR was using irony to point out that in no way had he referenced Communism, and in no way should you have dragged it in and then pretended to "win" a discussion point based on it. The irony was plain to see....

As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.

Wow - what - 80 or 100 words used, and not a point to be seen other than "I'm right you're wrong"!

You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!

More of the same.... Can you not see that while no-one can really "force" people to do something, they can see if action (or inaction) is wrong? If I have a tourniquet, and someone is bleeding to death, I'm not obliged to put it on them, but I indeed would. You'd be free to judge me on either action or inaction, just as I (and others) can judge what other people do too...

LuckyR
11-25-2007, 07:38 PM
balls;1902361']I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking. As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.
You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!



...chortle... Which is it? You make the call!

origmarm
11-26-2007, 01:37 AM
balls;1898020']I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!!

They probably do, I'm not sure what your point is?

balls;1898020']Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

Agreed, they do. I don't think anyone is disputing this, I think Orange is trying to make a point that his conscience would not permit him to live that livestyle with that money, not that they should not be allowed to earn it.

OP: I think the point I was trying to make with the dollar figure was not what I would be happy with. I can understand some people wanting to make lots of money and be successfull. I do however think that anyone over 8 digits has a different outlook on life to me.

I used to think that the point was money and posessions. I had those and lost them and came to realise that I valued different things. I think you are right to be disillusioned with society's focus on wealth. I see it every day and wonder at it. As the song says money can't buy you love.

I would say that for me personally I would be happy with a good middle class life. The key is enough to give your children a good life and a good start in life.

Deuce
11-26-2007, 02:31 AM
People always try to earn as much money as possible because their needs are unlimited. Therefore, Federer and Sampras, despite earning 100s of millions in their careers, still try to earn more money to fullfill their endless needs.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
As others have noted, you both need to mature and realize the distinction between need and want.

We live in a mostly merit based society. In a merit based society you are mainly paid according to how easily you are replaced, and how important you are to making others money.

Actors and athletes make alot of money because the products that they produce make alot of money. If sports franchise owners could build stadiums, obtain TV contracts and sellout stadiums with out having athletes they WOULD. Now since the owners are making HUNDREDS of millions, don't the players deserve their 20%. Same with Actors Tom Cruise/Denzel Washington don't make 20 Million a movie because execs like them and want to make them rich. It's because they know that the EXACT same movie will make a minimum of 20 million more with them, and probably much more.

And for your next trick, you'll tell us exactly how many wrongs combine to make a right.
Right?

Agreed. We need food, water, shelter, love, and probably a few other things. The dollar value of these things required for subsistence, even in western society, is quite little.

The dollar value of our wants, on the other hand....
Indeed.

Well, it seemed like he had some pretty strong feelings on this subject, was wondering, just out of curiosity, if he felt strongly enough to live by his words. If he feels this strongly and even HE doesn't give till it hurts, not sure why he would be incredulous as to why other people wouldn't.
Perhaps because many others make far more money than he does, and once the necessities and a few perks are taken care of, they can make sure that the rest is given to those who NEED it (not to mention who EARN it), and not to those who merely want it.

Someone in another thread brought up an excellent point - why aren't Federer and Sampras playing these exhibition matches for charity, instead of their own fat wallets? Both have won 40 million USD from playing tennis, both have earned 2 or 5 or 10 times that from endorsements, both are undoubtedly set for life and 100 lives after that.

By playing for a charity, not only could they have used their celeb power to find venues and promoters for free, but they would also have brought massive awareness to a charity as well. The net outcome would be millions of dollars to charity from ticket sales & tv advertising, and then millions of dollars saved in advertising for the charity.

Last night on Letterman I saw Bill Clinton, advertising his new book 'Giving'. Great idea, write a book about charitable donations, increase awareness, encourage people to give. Fantastic. I then spent 5 mins scratching around the web to find out, let's say, hopefully confirm the hopefully obvious - that he would be doing this for nothing, giving his time to this project. And on the Bill Clinton Foundation website, I find this:

President Clinton is dedicating a portion of the book's proceeds to charities and nonprofits that are doing their part to change the world.

Disgusting.

When is enough money....enough?
Indeed - the majority of people are disgusting.

I live on $12,000 per year in North American culture. By choice. That's well below the claimed 'poverty line'.
And yet, I live quite comfortably.
Go figure.

One reason I live comfortably is because I make intelligent choices. But the main reason I live comfortably on that amount is because my material wants are few.
I derive my fulfillment from other sources. Dare I say it's a more genuine fulfillment than those who 'fulfill' themselves by drowning themselves in material and luxury.

This issue being discussed in this thread certainly has absolutely nothing to do with need.
Nor does it even have to do with money.
It's all about status.
Money only enters into it as a comparative - to compare the amount of money you have/make to what others have/make, and thus 'earn' your status, or 'worth'.
Why does baseball player 'A' demand $10 million this year when he has made $8 million for each of the past 5 years? Certainly $40 million is far more than enough to live the remainder of one's life on in a more than comfortable manner. The guy already has 7 expensive cars, 3 yachts, and a mansion or two. There is certainly no need for another $10 million. But he demands it, anyway.
Why? Simply because, like so many people in this wretched culture, his self-worth is directly (and pathetically) tied in to his income and financial assets. And because player 'B' made $9 million last year, and player 'A' hit 7 more home runs, or scored 7 more touchdowns, than player 'B', and 'beating player 'B' financially is, sadly, the only way player 'A' can 'prove' that he's 'better' than player 'B'.

Greed and selfishness are direct products of insecurity.
Insecurity is at the root of all this. No question.

With the massive amount of money floating around this planet, a hell of a lot of it is entirely misused.
Everything, it seems, is measured based on its dollar value - as if things possess no other type of value; or that any other type of value pales in comparison to the dollar value.

Think about it - today, amounts like $5 million, $10 million, $40 million, etc. roll off the tongues of sportscasters and 'entertainment reporters' alike without anyone raising an eyebrow. Talk about desensitized! And this is occurring within the very same culture where a significant portion of the population does not have enough money for food and/or shelter.
If this is not proof positive of the sick and unhealthy nature of our culture, I don't know what is.

Even more sadly, this sickness is spreading all across the planet.

PimpMyGame
11-26-2007, 02:51 AM
Let me give it to you the way I see it:

How much hard cash do I donate to charity? Very little. Why? Because I am very dubious about how much of my donation goes to the front line, and how much is eaten up by red tape, administration and bureacracy.

How much of my time and skill do I give to charity? Plenty. I am a chartered certified accountant and found out very quickly that I can give up my time and skill by being a (non-charging) treasurer to several charities. I am available to prepare accounts, give ad-hoc advice and present the accounts at AGMs.

If pushed I could give a whack of cash to charity, but it's not always the way to go. By offering my services to local causes I have control over my "donation". It's not always about cash.

Tempest344
11-26-2007, 05:04 AM
its never enough
eg Sharapova

southpaw
11-26-2007, 06:12 AM
Why does baseball player 'A' demand $10 million this year when he has made $8 million for each of the past 5 years? Certainly $40 million is far more than enough to live the remainder of one's life on in a more than comfortable manner. The guy already has 7 expensive cars, 3 yachts, and a mansion or two. There is certainly no need for another $10 million. But he demands it, anyway.
Why? Simply because, like so many people in this wretched culture, his self-worth is directly (and pathetically) tied in to his income and financial assets. And because player 'B' made $9 million last year, and player 'A' hit 7 more home runs, or scored 7 more touchdowns, than player 'B', and 'beating player 'B' financially is, sadly, the only way player 'A' can 'prove' that he's 'better' than player 'B'.



You find this all disgusting, but I look at it just the other way. Sports should be competitive. If Federer decided today that he has plenty of money and has no more desire to compete, I would find THAT disgusting. I want to watch him push himself. I'll happily play the lemming, and do my little part - I will plunk myself down in front of the television, suffer through the commercials, so the advertisers can pay the networks, who pay the tournaments, who then pay the players. If Federer makes billions from the process, good on him then.

It's not the athletes and their greed that's the problem; nobody gets paid for greed. When's the last time you purchased some greed? No, it's guys like me that are the true source of the evil. If I could be content watching 3.0 players compete for a gift-certificate to Red Lobster, than all the mansions, yachts and cars you find so disgusting, would all disappear.

CanadianChic
11-26-2007, 07:01 AM
I'm somewhat shocked... at the above, and at you, and many others completely missing the point of my thread.

My question was mostly rhetorical in shock at how insanely greedy some people are, I wasn't actually expecting you and rich76 and others to lay claim to a dollar figure.

It seems greed (on insane levels) is becoming exceptionally pervasive.

OrangeOne, please don't be offended by my post. I was merely trying to add a little levity to the discussion to which I now feel was inappropriate. I have no excuses for Rich though...he is just plain evil. :twisted:

Seriously OO, I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. There is too much greed in society and not nearly enough empathy. To do with slightly less so that others may experience the basic necessities is not merely a noble gesture - it speaks of one's character. I donate every month to an organization of my choosing. I also will never turn my back on someone requesting my help, be it my time or my financial aide.

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-26-2007, 07:19 AM
They probably do, I'm not sure what your point is?



Agreed, they do. I don't think anyone is disputing this, I think Orange is trying to make a point that his conscience would not permit him to live that livestyle with that money, not that they should not be allowed to earn it.

OP: I think the point I was trying to make with the dollar figure was not what I would be happy with. I can understand some people wanting to make lots of money and be successfull. I do however think that anyone over 8 digits has a different outlook on life to me.

I used to think that the point was money and posessions. I had those and lost them and came to realise that I valued different things. I think you are right to be disillusioned with society's focus on wealth. I see it every day and wonder at it. As the song says money can't buy you love.

I would say that for me personally I would be happy with a good middle class life. The key is enough to give your children a good life and a good start in life.
My point is that they have the nerve to pass judgement and argue the fact that because they have earned excess amounts of fortune, all of a sudden they're greedy and heartless. Even if they don't give as much a percentage of profit to charity, they still give probably more than you or anyone else in this thread could hope to make in a lifetime!

deeps
11-26-2007, 07:38 AM
In western culture, and in the USA in particular, the economy is fueled by unhappiness. Corporations strive to keep us continually unhappy, incomplete, not fully realized, so that we're always ready to buy the next car, outfit, shoe, electronic gadget, pill, workout machine, tennis racket, vacation, or whatever, that promises to make us who we were truly meant to be. In the end, the most important thing in the world is having honest, meaningful, loving relationships with people. That's the only thing that can ever make you truly happy, but even there, I think the USA sort of works against you. If you're over 20 and living with your family, you're a loser. Now if you post on Craigslist and decide to live with a complete stranger, that's okay, but god forbid you decide to continue living with the people you love and trust the most in the world. We live in a very unnatural world.

Very true!
But to be truly honest and loving is a big task.

max
11-26-2007, 08:05 AM
I think it's interesting to so many of the good things I've enjoyed have been free, and I don't just mean nature. I mean a chess game with a friend. Playing the regular tennis game. Reading a book. A lot of the good things in life take little to no money. An enjoyable life, one with happiness, requires other people, not just me spending money on myself.

I always tend to agree with the statement: you can only eat so many steaks, or wear one pair of pants at a time.

origmarm
11-26-2007, 08:16 AM
balls;1903146']My point is that they have the nerve to pass judgement and argue the fact that because they have earned excess amounts of fortune, all of a sudden they're greedy and heartless. Even if they don't give as much a percentage of profit to charity, they still give probably more than you or anyone else in this thread could hope to make in a lifetime!

I see. I thought you were getting upset about my lack of charity.

I don't think they are greedy and heartless at all, I do however think that I would probably be different (says he now, clutching lotto ticket).

Serve em Up
11-26-2007, 08:30 AM
Studies have shown that being happy is not about how much you have. It is about how you feel about what you have relative to your peers.

If you live in a poor community but have more than your peers you are probably happy.

If you are an elite athlete making 10 million when your peers make 40 million you are likely unhappy.

This study was published with the qualifier that it only applies after the immediate needs of food shelter and clothing were met.


There is a lot of truth in concept to me.

In the US, we live in a free society. Work hard and use your talents and you can do very well for yourself. It is also up to you to determine how you use your money. Some are generous, others are not. That is their right. It is not our right to dictate haw much they are limited to.

It is not the job of the majority of social activists to dictate to the wealthy that they are only allowed to have so much. If they do, they risk destroying the motivation that wealth brings. Look at communist countries, everybody gets the same amount, regardless of their abilities or production. This only breeds a society of freeriders.

The wealthy create jobs and opportunities for everyone else. Look at guys like Bill Gates, Look at all of the jobs created that involve the programming, distribution, support, or eduction related to Microsoft products. Bill should be the wealthiest guy in the world.

Compare that to the number of jobs created by Teddy Kennedy, John Edwards, Kucinich, Obama. Do we really want these folks dictating how much income is right? They talk about fairness and the wealthy paying your fair share, but what about creating more jobs so these people don't need government handouts. Not to mention the amount of money the government wastes by setting up distribution systems to determine who gets handouts and actually administer the handing out.

I don't care for materialstic money grubbing fat cats, but I hate the idea of self rightous activists taking whatever they determine to be Fair and giving to whomever they want.

BTW: Even you don't count the value of jobs that "fat cats" create through investment and business creation, just look at the jobs that they create by their consumerism. Someone has to clean their houses, staff the restaraunts, make the fancy cars, service the fancy cars etc.

Time to stop being envious and get to work.

richw76
11-26-2007, 09:56 AM
OrangeOne, please don't be offended by my post. I was merely trying to add a little levity to the discussion to which I now feel was inappropriate. I have no excuses for Rich though...he is just plain evil. :twisted:

Seriously OO, I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. There is too much greed in society and not nearly enough empathy. To do with slightly less so that others may experience the basic necessities is not merely a noble gesture - it speaks of one's character. I donate every month to an organization of my choosing. I also will never turn my back on someone requesting my help, be it my time or my financial aide.

Funny, I may be evil. My background is I was the "Poor" kid in high school. My parents were actually middle class with a two story house in Miami with a Cadillac in the garage. The problem they decided to send me to the private school were the most affluent families in S. Florida sent their kids. So even though my dad was a successful IT director I had a skewed since of reality. Until I went to college. And meet more of different types of people.

I have some ambition, and a greedy streak but it's not all consuming.

I've been poor and struggling. There were times in college
when I lived for months at a time on ramin noodles, and taco bell bean burritos. With out the emotional, and sometimes financial support of a few great friends I wouldn't have made it.

Deuce I'm glad you can have a fulfilled life on 12k$ a year.
Myself that's less than what I give to charity every year.

And to confirm my evilness I will admit, the main reason I give so much is because the Tax man would take it anyway, and I prefer to know were my money is going

richw76
11-26-2007, 10:00 AM
I think it's interesting to so many of the good things I've enjoyed have been free, and I don't just mean nature. I mean a chess game with a friend. Playing the regular tennis game. Reading a book. A lot of the good things in life take little to no money. An enjoyable life, one with happiness, requires other people, not just me spending money on myself.

I always tend to agree with the statement: you can only eat so many steaks, or wear one pair of pants at a time.

I couldn't agree more. If I was completely broke, and still had the love of my wife, and the company of our friends. I would be happy.

richw76
11-26-2007, 10:04 AM
Studies have shown that being happy is not about how much you have. It is about how you feel about what you have relative to your peers.

If you live in a poor community but have more than your peers you are probably happy.

If you are an elite athlete making 10 million when your peers make 40 million you are likely unhappy.

This study was published with the qualifier that it only applies after the immediate needs of food shelter and clothing were met.


There is a lot of truth in concept to me.

In the US, we live in a free society. Work hard and use your talents and you can do very well for yourself. It is also up to you to determine how you use your money. Some are generous, others are not. That is their right. It is not our right to dictate haw much they are limited to.

It is not the job of the majority of social activists to dictate to the wealthy that they are only allowed to have so much. If they do, they risk destroying the motivation that wealth brings. Look at communist countries, everybody gets the same amount, regardless of their abilities or production. This only breeds a society of freeriders.

The wealthy create jobs and opportunities for everyone else. Look at guys like Bill Gates, Look at all of the jobs created that involve the programming, distribution, support, or eduction related to Microsoft products. Bill should be the wealthiest guy in the world.

Compare that to the number of jobs created by Teddy Kennedy, John Edwards, Kucinich, Obama. Do we really want these folks dictating how much income is right? They talk about fairness and the wealthy paying your fair share, but what about creating more jobs so these people don't need government handouts. Not to mention the amount of money the government wastes by setting up distribution systems to determine who gets handouts and actually administer the handing out.

I don't care for materialstic money grubbing fat cats, but I hate the idea of self rightous activists taking whatever they determine to be Fair and giving to whomever they want.

BTW: Even you don't count the value of jobs that "fat cats" create through investment and business creation, just look at the jobs that they create by their consumerism. Someone has to clean their houses, staff the restaraunts, make the fancy cars, service the fancy cars etc.

Time to stop being envious and get to work.

God bless the sensible. I'm glad their are some people more articulate than myself to explain this position.

35ft6
11-26-2007, 10:18 AM
Perhaps because many others make far more money than he does, and once the necessities and a few perks are taken care of, they can make sure that the rest is given to those who NEED it (not to mention who EARN it), and not to those who merely want it. More money than he does is a very nebulous way of putting it. I'm absolutely sure there are a lot of people who make a LOT more money than he does, and this attitude is why nothing changes. It's not an all or nothing proposition. You don't have to be a millionaire to contribute to charities. I give hundreds a year to various charities and this started even before I started making okay-ish money. And not just that, he could give to the homeless on the street, and that means just 25 cents or so here or there -- you hardly need to be Bill Gates to do that. Most people are just talk, plain and simple. They'll never feel like they have enough money to give to charity, holding out for the day they win the lottery.

Serve em Up
11-26-2007, 10:19 AM
richw76,

I had my share of Ramen noodles in college. I used to be very envious of the kids from out of state with the cars and had what seemed to be to be unlimited funds for pizza, gyros, and beer. The taco bell bean burritos were out of my price range though. I used to hunt for loose change under seat cushions to collect enough money to go out on the weekend.

Little did I realize that I was fortunate enough just to be at college, and that I had parents that although hardly wealthy, recognized the value of education and worked hard to make sure that I received a good education.

I'm only wealthy now according to the liberals definition. I have to work to put food on the table even though there are those by whose definition I would be "rich". I don't have to look far to see other's who I believe to be "rich" and I'm sure they have those who they see as "rich".

Everyone of better than average means should be generous and make an effort to help those that are less fortunate. Especially when it comes to getting disadvantaged kids an education. The main problem the disadvantaged kid's seem to have is that even if the money is made available, the kid's idiot parent's values interfere with the kids education. Our inner cities seem to spend more per capita student than many of the wealthy suburbs even though the test scores remain dismal.That's another thread.

Charitable giving is a sure fire way to avoid taxes. I also strongly prefer that I get to choose who I help so those pesky activists in congress don't work hard to give away my money to stupid social programs that don't work.

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-26-2007, 10:32 AM
I see. I thought you were getting upset about my lack of charity.

I don't think they are greedy and heartless at all, I do however think that I would probably be different (says he now, clutching lotto ticket).

Listen, I agree with most of what everybody has posted, I realize the discussion is all about what one person might do in comparison to another. What peaves me is when anyone supposes what someone else ought to do, and passing judgement if they don't. Peoaple that usually talk about what others oght to be doing are almost always people that need to follow their own advice-all talk!!!

OrangeOne
11-26-2007, 08:29 PM
It's all about status.
....
Why? Simply because, like so many people in this wretched culture, his self-worth is directly (and pathetically) tied in to his income and financial assets.

Very neat summary Deuce.

Still, though, I wish

With the massive amount of money floating around this planet, a hell of a lot of it is entirely misused.
Everything, it seems, is measured based on its dollar value - as if things possess no other type of value; or that any other type of value pales in comparison to the dollar value.

There's almost a thread in and of itself in the above paragraph, in fact, I'm sure there's a book that could be written on it. So much more thinking to do, well, i have anyways...

OrangeOne
11-26-2007, 08:36 PM
Let me give it to you the way I see it:

How much hard cash do I donate to charity? Very little. Why? Because I am very dubious about how much of my donation goes to the front line, and how much is eaten up by red tape, administration and bureacracy.

This opinion is quite old and stale, to be honest. It's much more surprising that you would express this opinion when I get to the next paragraph and find out you're a CA, and that you do pro-bono work for charities. Surely, with your financial knowledge, you understand that money has to be expended to raise money, surely with your perspective you understand that the charities you do work for probably have expenses anyways?

For you and others: Google "charity ratings" to find many sites that evaluate the effectiveness of many many charities.

If pushed I could give a whack of cash to charity, but it's not always the way to go. By offering my services to local causes I have control over my "donation". It's not always about cash.

Very true.

OrangeOne
11-26-2007, 08:38 PM
You find this all disgusting, but I look at it just the other way. Sports should be competitive. If Federer decided today that he has plenty of money and has no more desire to compete, I would find THAT disgusting. I want to watch him push himself. I'll happily play the lemming, and do my little part - I will plunk myself down in front of the television, suffer through the commercials, so the advertisers can pay the networks, who pay the tournaments, who then pay the players. If Federer makes billions from the process, good on him then.

You make it sound like the only way people can be competitive is if they're being paid fortunes? It's not the case. Players... 50 to 500 in the world play essentially the same as anyone outside the top 5, and one can see them for free every week of the year. Other sports are as competitive as tennis, but just not paid, or not paid obscene amounts. Sure, it's all advertising-driven, but money does not solely drive competitiveness.

OrangeOne
11-26-2007, 08:45 PM
balls;1903424']What peaves me is when anyone supposes what someone else ought to do, and passing judgement if they don't. Peoaple that usually talk about what others oght to be doing are almost always people that need to follow their own advice-all talk!!!

There are a million cases in the world where people lead with words, without walking in the shoes of those they are leading. There are women's activists who are male, fitness trainers who are paralysed, psychologists with mental illnesses, etc etc. What matters most is that people choose to lead...

OrangeOne
11-26-2007, 08:50 PM
Funny, I may be evil. My background is I was the "Poor" kid in high school. My parents were actually middle class with a two story house in Miami with a Cadillac in the garage. The problem they decided to send me to the private school were the most affluent families in S. Florida sent their kids.

That was the 'problem', that they sent you to a good school? You were 'poor' by comparison? Oh goodness no!

I have some ambition, and a greedy streak but it's not all consuming.Your previous posts in other threads sing a different tune.

Deuce I'm glad you can have a fulfilled life on 12k$ a year.
Myself that's less than what I give to charity every year.
Is that some disgusting weirdo attempt at one-upmanship? That sort of commentary just makes me sick, and is completely myopic. Did deuce say what he gives to charity? Nope, he said what he lives on. For all you know, he could be earning more than you could dream of, and giving 99.99% to charity. For all you know, he could be giving more in time and effort than you could ever, especially while you're off polishing the 'vette. Sickening.

And to confirm my evilness I will admit, the main reason I give so much is because the Tax man would take it anyway, and I prefer to know were my money is going...especially in light of this.

And as for knowing where your money is going, well, government spending is perhaps the most transparent of any spending. Did you perhaps mean to say "so that you can specifically choose where your money is going"? I think so.

angharad
11-26-2007, 09:11 PM
You make it sound like the only way people can be competitive is if they're being paid fortunes? It's not the case. Players... 50 to 500 in the world play essentially the same as anyone outside the top 5, and one can see them for free every week of the year. Other sports are as competitive as tennis, but just not paid, or not paid obscene amounts. Sure, it's all advertising-driven, but money does not solely drive competitiveness.

Very true. I'm always amazed with the Winter Olympics in particular for that reason. You hear stories of these incredible athletes who are working one or more jobs to support themselves, possibly their family, and their athletic career. I'm not talking about the ones that live full-time at the training center, I'm talking about the bobsledders, the curling teams, the ones who live 5 or 6 to an apartment so they can pool their money for expenses, knowing full well that at most they'll get some prize money and maybe an interview or two. Yet they're still out there winning Olympic medals simply because they love the sport. I'd really like to see that filter into mainstream sports, but I highly doubt I'll ever see the day.

Deuce
11-27-2007, 12:31 AM
Very true. I'm always amazed with the Winter Olympics in particular for that reason. You hear stories of these incredible athletes who are working one or more jobs to support themselves, possibly their family, and their athletic career. I'm not talking about the ones that live full-time at the training center, I'm talking about the bobsledders, the curling teams, the ones who live 5 or 6 to an apartment so they can pool their money for expenses, knowing full well that at most they'll get some prize money and maybe an interview or two. Yet they're still out there winning Olympic medals simply because they love the sport. I'd really like to see that filter into mainstream sports, but I highly doubt I'll ever see the day.
In keeping with this direction...
The Canadian government ecently revealed that they will now pay athletes who win medals at the Olympics - I believe the amounts ate $30,000 for gold; $20,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze.

Doesn't this run completely counter to what the Olympics are supposed to be all about?
The Olympics are supposed to be about competing and trying one's best - with the only motivations being love of the sport and striving to be the best.
apparently, because we live in a culture in which money is the main (only?) motivation for people, the Canadian government now feels that athletes must be no different. They obviously see it as an investment - that this financial motivation will result in more medals for Canada.

And, looking at the larger picture, I find that incredibly sad.

On the topc of this thread in general...
I think what some of us are saying is that a person should not necessarily be judged on how much (or little) money one makes - but rather should be judged on what one does with the money one makes.

CanadianChic
11-27-2007, 01:42 AM
That isn't very much money when you consider the out of pocket costs many of these athletes cough up for equipment, coaches, trainers, travel fees, etc, etc. I consider this monetary sum to be more of a reimbursement for many years of struggle than payment for a single event. The Canadian government is notorious for not financially supporting our athletes.

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 01:47 AM
That isn't very much money when you consider the out of pocket costs many of these athletes cough up for equipment, coaches, trainers, travel fees, etc, etc. I consider this monetary sum to be more of a reimbursement for many years of struggle than payment for a single event.

But only a reimbursement for those who podium at Olympic level? Here, you came third, have $10000, here you came fourth, have a hug?

The Canadian government is notorious for not financially supporting our athletes.

Is government "support" of athletes really something that you want to raise in the context of this thread? ;). In fact, please do, I have lots to say on that issue (that all centres on the sentence "why do we 'fund' athletes when there are people starving in the world").

Phil
11-27-2007, 01:57 AM
Is government "support" of athletes really something that you want to raise in the context of this thread? ;). In fact, please do, I have lots to say on that issue (that all centres on the sentence "why do we 'fund' athletes when there are people starving in the world").
Hey, Orange, newsflash: Rich and developed nations like Australia and the US can afford to allocate money in their budgets not only for developing nations to fight hunger but also to subsidize their own sports programs. Surprise!:-?

Your argument is not a whole lot different than that brought up by the right wingers in my country whenever the issue of funding for the arts is raised: "Why give any money to the arts (the artists are probably all liberals anyway), when you can put yet more money into bombers, missiles and tanks?"

The percentage of money that goes to the Olympic team is a fraction of ODA assistance. So, I think this is a moot point for a rich nation.

Deuce
11-27-2007, 02:04 AM
That isn't very much money when you consider the out of pocket costs many of these athletes cough up for equipment, coaches, trainers, travel fees, etc, etc. I consider this monetary sum to be more of a reimbursement for many years of struggle than payment for a single event. The Canadian government is notorious for not financially supporting our athletes.
Quite obviously, this is not a "reimbursement", but a reward, as it is offered only to medalists.
And financial reward for performance entirely opposes the genuinely noble Olympic ideal.

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 02:10 AM
Hey, Orange, newsflash: Rich and developed nations like Australia and the US can afford to allocate money in their budgets not only for developing nations to fight hunger but also to subsidize their own sports programs. Surprise!:-?

Realllly? Cool. I never knew! :-?

But seriously folks... or just But seriously Phil, riddle me this: Why should they (fund elite sports programs)?

Your argument is not a whole lot different than that brought up by the right wingers in my country whenever the issue of funding for the arts is raised: "Why give any money to the arts (the artists are probably all liberals anyway), when you can put yet more money into bombers, missiles and tanks?" As above, arts (to some extent) I get, science / research (to some extent) I get, sports I don't. Call me a hypocrite if you will, but I just don't think there is enough growth potential for society from supporting sports, especially now that sport is a gazillion-dollar industry. Perhaps 100 years ago I understood government funding of sport, now if the government spends a cent on sport I think it should be targeted at keeping the population active, and there's simply not enough translation from couch-potato to activity to be had by spending that cent on elite-funding when there's so much elite sport being corporate-funded.

The percentage of money that goes to the Olympic team is a fraction of ODA assistance. So, I think this is a moot point for a rich nation.Institutes of sport... I get them, but I kinda-don't too. Ours has a bit of money thrown at it, and I mostly wonder why....

southpaw
11-27-2007, 02:33 AM
Players... 50 to 500 in the world play essentially the same as anyone outside the top 5

Technically you're correct. But, if you asked those 50-500, and they were honest, I bet most would confess they are fighting to be on top of the pile not in the middle.

Other sports are as competitive as tennis, but just not paid, or not paid obscene amounts.

It's not obscene enough. There is currently too little prize money in tennis. More money would help increase the depth of talent. A first round Wimbledon loss pays roughly 10,000 pounds. That's not very much. It's pathetic when compared to the total take for the Lawn Tennis Association. In contrast, the NFL pays over 60% of it's proceeds to the players.

Something caught my ear while watching the "Roger Federer Story" on the tennis channel. They were interviewing his father and he was talking about the viability of tennis as a career, and he made the point that if you are not in the top 100 you can not make a decent living. It struck me how close we all came to never seeing Roger play the game.

How many other talented athletes don't pursue tennis because of the astronomically slim odds of making a decent wage?

Serve em Up
11-27-2007, 04:31 AM
And as for knowing where your money is going, well, government spending is perhaps the most transparent of any spending. Did you perhaps mean to say "so that you can specifically choose where your money is going"? I think so.


Government spending may be transparent but it is incredibly wasteful. The hearings, forms, office workers, computers, GAO audits, and recipient evaluation process and other stuff put in place to prevent corruption and ensure transparency is extremely costly. Dollar for dollar, charities staffed with volunteers are far more efficient in ensuring that more of every dollar gets to the recipient.

Unfortunately, charities don't have the scale needed to fulfill the need. Also, because they are small, they are highly specialized to serve a particular group. This limits their size but also improves their effectiveness. If I was a recipient I would rather deal with a highly commited volunteer that cares about my plight than a low paid social worker that sees me as another number in a case file.



Most non-profit charities are required by law to provide what their administrative and marketing expense is as a percentage of money that is given. It is an effective way to make sure you are giving money to an efficient provider of assistance and non,lining the pockets of an ad agency, and media outlets.

As for Olympics, I think countries should support their athletes. I don't know that providing "rewards" is the way to go. Individual athletes shouldn't go into debt when they represent their country.

As for the amount of money that athletes from different sports receive It rightly should depend on the money that theindividual sport generates. The NFL generates HUGE money. The attendance, media contracts, licensed clothing, advertising revenue, all generate huge business. Tennis generates a pittance in comparison. I've said for years that football and to a slightly lesser extent is fueled by beer. Revenue to the NFL from beer commercials is HUGE. Beer drives the home parties that fuel the snack sales, the clothing, and is a major reason people go to the games. If there was no beer, the attendance would plummet, Sunday game parties would be far less popular and the whole thing would be a shadow of what it is now. I think that is sad.

Tennis will never be that way. At least lets hope not. Tennis fans generally play the sport. Most football fans can't lift more than 12oz oz.or run farther than to the refrigerator and back.

35ft6
11-27-2007, 08:07 AM
Realllly? Cool. I never knew! :-?

But seriously folks... or just But seriously Phil, riddle me this: Why should they (fund elite sports programs)?

As above, arts (to some extent) I get, science / research (to some extent) I get, sports I don't. Personally, I don't think my country does enough to support the arts, music, and athletics. Studies show there are all sorts of benefits that come along with all three. America has a problem with waiting to treat symptoms instead of taking preemptive measures and that's manifested by everything from commercials for weight loss products to our prison system. Why support athletics? Because children who actively take part in athletics have better grades, more social skills, and are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Plus, they learn about rules and the importance of teamwork. Aside from that fact that the USA is being confronted by record levels of obese citizens.

richw76
11-27-2007, 12:56 PM
Personally, I don't think my country does enough to support the arts, music, and athletics. Studies show there are all sorts of benefits that come along with all three. America has a problem with waiting to treat symptoms instead of taking preemptive measures and that's manifested by everything from commercials for weight loss products to our prison system. Why support athletics? Because children who actively take part in athletics have better grades, more social skills, and are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Plus, they learn about rules and the importance of teamwork. Aside from that fact that the USA is being confronted by record levels of obese citizens.

I couldn't disagree with you more 35. Big government is the key, and everyone should be the same. Orange you've changed me forever. No matter what you do everyone should make 25k a year. Even the drug addicted, and lazy.
It would have worked in Soviet Russia if not for the imperialist Americans undermining a pure and fair system.

richw76
11-27-2007, 01:08 PM
That was the 'problem', that they sent you to a good school? You were 'poor' by comparison? Oh goodness no!

Your previous posts in other threads sing a different tune.

Is that some disgusting weirdo attempt at one-upmanship? That sort of commentary just makes me sick, and is completely myopic. Did deuce say what he gives to charity? Nope, he said what he lives on. For all you know, he could be earning more than you could dream of, and giving 99.99% to charity. For all you know, he could be giving more in time and effort than you could ever, especially while you're off polishing the 'vette. Sickening.

...especially in light of this.

And as for knowing where your money is going, well, government spending is perhaps the most transparent of any spending. Did you perhaps mean to say "so that you can specifically choose where your money is going"? I think so.

I'm glad you took the time to review my post. And do you seriously believe Deuce gives 99.99% of his income to charity? I just thought of a new pole.

If people had the choice of living in a world were EVERYONE had a Lower middle class lifestyle. Enough to eat, a used camry, a crappy apartment, eating out means, a trip to Pizza Hut, no name clothing, living check to check, and no hope of advance.

OR make them Rich, knowing that they could leave a legacy that their children could follow if they choose. along with all the other trappings of a "Rich" Lifestyle, and forget about the poor and downtrodden. I think most people would do what I do.

Take care of my own first, help others when I can. And be a person that I can live with, and that my wife and family can love. ;-)

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 02:06 PM
Technically you're correct. But, if you asked those 50-500, and they were honest, I bet most would confess they are fighting to be on top of the pile not in the middle.

Of course they are fighting to be on top of the pile, but that's irrelevant to the point that the tennis is (for the most part) pretty damn great. I went & watched the current #500ish at a local open, and it was mind blowing...

It's not obscene enough. There is currently too little prize money in tennis. More money would help increase the depth of talent. A first round Wimbledon loss pays roughly 10,000 pounds. That's not very much. It's pathetic when compared to the total take for the Lawn Tennis Association. In contrast, the NFL pays over 60% of it's proceeds to the players.

As pro sports go, tennis is not lowly-paid, but highly paid to a very shallow depth, if that makes sense. For sure, top #50 is where the bills are paid and then money is made on top, and most never get there. The top #1000 football players in Australia alone (across our 2 main codes) all make 6-figures, and have lives that involve zero-expenses other than food and shelter. Unlike tennis players, the clubs pay for their coaching / transport / accommodation / medical / etc.

So yes, by comparison, I certainly agreed there is little money in tennis for players, but in the context of this thread....

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 02:11 PM
Government spending may be transparent but it is incredibly wasteful. The hearings, forms, office workers, computers, GAO audits, and recipient evaluation process and other stuff put in place to prevent corruption and ensure transparency is extremely costly. Dollar for dollar, charities staffed with volunteers are far more efficient in ensuring that more of every dollar gets to the recipient.

Let's not forget governments have, unlike many charities, many many more jobs to do in addition to distributing money, but I take your point.

Unfortunately, charities don't have the scale needed to fulfill the need. Also, because they are small, they are highly specialized to serve a particular group. This limits their size but also improves their effectiveness. If I was a recipient I would rather deal with a highly commited volunteer that cares about my plight than a low paid social worker that sees me as another number in a case file.

The difference being: one knows that the "low paid" social worker will indeed be there, because they're paid to be. The volunteer...has to volunteer to be there.

As for Olympics, I think countries should support their athletes. I don't know that providing "rewards" is the way to go. Individual athletes shouldn't go into debt when they represent their country.


Ahh yes, the noble concept of "representing one's country". Can you explain to me what the point is? Why do we need to battle country against country, when we all know that we're all so different in size and wealth that battling one-another at the Olympics is really about as fair as a tennis match between me and Federer!

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 02:13 PM
Personally, I don't think my country does enough to support the arts, music, and athletics. Studies show there are all sorts of benefits that come along with all three. America has a problem with waiting to treat symptoms instead of taking preemptive measures and that's manifested by everything from commercials for weight loss products to our prison system. Why support athletics? Because children who actively take part in athletics have better grades, more social skills, and are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Plus, they learn about rules and the importance of teamwork. Aside from that fact that the USA is being confronted by record levels of obese citizens.

Hey - I'm all for the funding of athletics... at the grassroots levels! Make little athletics free for all kids, do what our government I believe is doing and mandate 30mins of exercise a day at school, etc etc. Build patterns that will last, get in the battle AGAINST McDonalds and Coca Cola to get the kids addicted to exercise instead of junk.

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 02:30 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more 35. Big government is the key, and everyone should be the same. Orange you've changed me forever. No matter what you do everyone should make 25k a year. Even the drug addicted, and lazy.
It would have worked in Soviet Russia if not for the imperialist Americans undermining a pure and fair system.

Can you participate in a debate about social equity without screaming Communist from the rafters?

I'm glad you took the time to review my post. And do you seriously believe Deuce gives 99.99% of his income to charity?

Did I say I did? Nope, it was an example.
Do you seriously believe you're in any way better than Deuce because you give more to charity than what he lives on? Because you sure as hell alluded to the fact you do.

I just thought of a new pole.

Really? Quick, patent it, there's money in poles, fencing, ladders....

If people had the choice of living in a world were EVERYONE had a Lower middle class lifestyle. Enough to eat, a used camry, a crappy apartment, eating out means, a trip to Pizza Hut, no name clothing, living check to check, and no hope of advance.

Well, given that you capitalised everyone, I'll assume you indeed mean everyone, including the 1.1 billion people living in poverty in developing nations alone.

So I can live in a world where everyone has not only enough to eat, but a lower-middle-class lifestyle. They have shelter, transport, clothes and access to education, they even have a computer in their house (maybe no LCD TV though, damn, should I reconsider?)

Where do I sign? Seriously, hand me the piece of paper.

Your values are so warped it's just scary. A used camry? No-name clothes? Seriously now folks. It's also interesting that you see such things as avdancement. Go on: if you explain nothing else to me in your next reply, please tell me how brand name clothes represent societal advancement? I'd love to hear it, just 50 words....

Can you not see that education can be advancement (and that there are countries, like australia, that make tertiary education affordable to the lower-middle-class? Hell, tertiary education here is accessible to pretty much anyone). Is education not advancement? Is access to sport, to hobbies, is that not all advancement?

OR make them Rich, knowing that they could leave a legacy that their children could follow if they choose. along with all the other trappings of a "Rich" Lifestyle, and forget about the poor and downtrodden. I think most people would do what I do.

Leave a legacy... of possessions. Hoorah!

Take care of my own first, help others when I can. And be a person that I can live with, and that my wife and family can love. ;-)

So let me get this straight: Your wife and your family wouldn't love you if you solved world poverty?

richw76
11-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Can you participate in a debate about social equity without screaming Communist from the rafters?


A system that makes everyone "equal", regardless of effort/merit. Yeah you're right I don't know why communism came to mind....



Did I say I did? Nope, it was an example.
Do you seriously believe you're in any way better than Deuce because you give more to charity than what he lives on? Because you sure as hell alluded to the fact you do.

If you knew me you would know I don't look down on anyone due to their income. In my tennis league, and with my personal friends some make much less money than me, and some make more than I can currently imagine. Maybe you are speaking to your own insecurities, that people with more money look down on you. And guess what some do, the same ones would look as poorly on me. ;-)

[QUOTE=OrangeOne;1906018]
Really? Quick, patent it, there's money in poles, fencing, ladders....

Poll....

Well, given that you capitalised everyone, I'll assume you indeed mean everyone, including the 1.1 billion people living in poverty in developing nations alone.

So I can live in a world where everyone has not only enough to eat, but a lower-middle-class lifestyle. They have shelter, transport, clothes and access to education, they even have a computer in their house (maybe no LCD TV though, damn, should I reconsider?)

Where do I sign? Seriously, hand me the piece of paper.

Your values are so warped it's just scary. A used camry? No-name clothes? Seriously now folks. It's also interesting that you see such things as avdancement. Go on: if you explain nothing else to me in your next reply, please tell me how brand name clothes represent societal advancement? I'd love to hear it, just 50 words....

Yep, I was referring to Everyone in the whole wide world. I hate to be too presumptuous but I really think you are the exception.


Can you not see that education can be advancement (and that there are countries, like australia, that make tertiary education affordable to the lower-middle-class? Hell, tertiary education here is accessible to pretty much anyone). Is education not advancement? Is access to sport, to hobbies, is that not all advancement?

And what is the motivation for eduacation? Since in your world being "Rich" means you are bad and selfish, and everyone is equal.

In Soviet Russia Most doctors like most teachers here are Women. I'm not sexiest, just pointing out when you take the financial incentive out most men choose occupations that give them status/power. Generally women are more empathetic, and have different motivations.

Leave a legacy... of possessions. Hoorah!

Not just possessions, but a way of life. and a future. Maybe you don't care what happens to your loved ones when you are gone, I care about mine.


So let me get this straight: Your wife and your family wouldn't love you if you solved world poverty?

I believe my family would love me no matter what. Talking about money. I had a Subaru Justy, and lived with my Mother when I met my wife. I've worked my butt off for the little that I have, so forgive me if I don't lose to much sleep if you disagree with my motives for giving, whatever I choose to give. ;-)

LuckyR
11-27-2007, 03:47 PM
So I can live in a world where everyone has not only enough to eat, but a lower-middle-class lifestyle. They have shelter, transport, clothes and access to education, they even have a computer in their house (maybe no LCD TV though, damn, should I reconsider?)

Where do I sign? Seriously, hand me the piece of paper.

Your values are so warped it's just scary. A used camry? No-name clothes? Seriously now folks. It's also interesting that you see such things as avdancement. Go on: if you explain nothing else to me in your next reply, please tell me how brand name clothes represent societal advancement? I'd love to hear it, just 50 words....


Brand named clothes are just a way to keep score in the game of personal wealth accumulation. Look around, here on Planet Earth folks are interested in competition and victory and they are willing to risk defeat and loss to have a chance in the Game. In this case, it's the Game of Life. On the planet you describe, let's call it, the Planet Fiction, there is no competition, only harmony as everyone is happy with mediocre and never seek excellence since in a zero sum game that would mean someone else would have to lose something.

It is true that on average life is longer in the Zoo (a controlled environment similar to, but unlike, reality) but I'll take the jungle, thank you very much, where I can use my talents and will either do well or poorly based on them and many other factors.

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 04:37 PM
A system that makes everyone "equal", regardless of effort/merit. Yeah you're right I don't know why communism came to mind....

Have I proposed that off-the-bat myself? Nope, I haven't even said it until you proposed the press-the-magic-button-and-solve-poverty-scenario. Up until then, all I've said that people who earn more should give more, and people who earn obscene amounts should be obscenely generous. Maybe it's you who needs to see beyond your own biases?

Maybe you are speaking to your own insecurities, that people with more money look down on you. And guess what some do, the same ones would look as poorly on me. ;-)

This time your 50 word challenge is to tell me why I should care about anyone who chooses to judge me?

Yep, I was referring to Everyone in the whole wide world. I hate to be too presumptuous but I really think you are the exception.


Well I think that's a personal insult, because I can't think that it's anything else.

And what is the motivation for eduacation?

To teach people how to spell education, for starters...

And what is the motivation for eduacation? Since in your world being "Rich" means you are bad and selfish, and everyone is equal.

Your myopia continues to amaze me. Are you really shallow enough to think that the only reason anyone would want to learn is to become "Rich"? Newsflash: Many (most) scientists are not, and never will be rich, certainly not in comparison to the sales execs that sell the products made with their breakthroughs. You may find it hard to believe, but there are still people out there, people changing the world, who have much grander goals that money, who are driven by so many other things than money.

In Soviet Russia Most doctors like most teachers here are Women. I'm not sexiest, just pointing out when you take the financial incentive out most men choose occupations that give them status/power. Generally women are more empathetic, and have different motivations.

Ok. Sure. 'Most men' went out and found positions of Status and Power, did they? I wonder who on earth they were powerful over? Generalisations to the level above prove nothing, and change nothing (who cares if there's a bit of a gender switch in careers if money is distributed differently?)

Not just possessions, but a way of life. and a future. Maybe you don't care what happens to your loved ones when you are gone, I care about mine.

I believe my family would love me no matter what.

Sooo.. they'd love you even if you had a 2nd hand camry, a low-middle-class job, and lived from check-to-check, wore no-name clothes and went out for Pizza at Pizza Hut?

Make up your mind.

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 04:54 PM
Brand named clothes are just a way to keep score in the game of personal wealth accumulation. Look around, here on Planet Earth folks are interested in competition and victory and they are willing to risk defeat and loss to have a chance in the Game. In this case, it's the Game of Life. On the planet you describe, let's call it, the Planet Fiction, there is no competition, only harmony as everyone is happy with mediocre and never seek excellence since in a zero sum game that would mean someone else would have to lose something.

It is true that on average life is longer in the Zoo (a controlled environment similar to, but unlike, reality) but I'll take the jungle, thank you very much, where I can use my talents and will either do well or poorly based on them and many other factors.

You're wrong, I'm in no way describing a situation without competition. Why would anyone want to do that? Competition is good, healthy, necessary.

Why is it that you, Rich76....so many people can only see competition as worthwhile if the outcome is money? See my points to Rich about scientists. Think of the last time you won a tennis match. Watch some kids racing around a playground.

Our base needs are not met by money, money is an artificial construct. Competition has existed since the day a food chain was created, way back when it was compete...or die. So we've previously competed on grounds more important than money....why is it wrong to imagine this may indeed be possible again?

LuckyR
11-27-2007, 06:18 PM
You're wrong, I'm in no way describing a situation without competition. Why would anyone want to do that? Competition is good, healthy, necessary.

Why is it that you, Rich76....so many people can only see competition as worthwhile if the outcome is money? See my points to Rich about scientists. Think of the last time you won a tennis match. Watch some kids racing around a playground.

Our base needs are not met by money, money is an artificial construct. Competition has existed since the day a food chain was created, way back when it was compete...or die. So we've previously competed on grounds more important than money....why is it wrong to imagine this may indeed be possible again?

Fine by me. If you are OK with competition and therefore with winners and losers, how are you going to guarantee that everyone has a "lower-middle class lifestyle"? Or are you saying that the new definition of "lower socioeconomic group" is now "lower middle class"?

What are you saying?

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 06:34 PM
Fine by me. If you are OK with competition and therefore with winners and losers, how are you going to guarantee that everyone has a "lower-middle class lifestyle"? Or are you saying that the new definition of "lower socioeconomic group" is now "lower middle class"?

What are you saying?

The lower-middle-class thing was NOT MINE, it was a proposition by Rich76 that was phrased in a way that no-one (of sound morals) could reject...

Me? I'm saying that the more someone earns, the more they should give to those earning less than them. The more someone has, the more they should give. I want people to be Pro-active robin-hoods, if you will...

Phil
11-27-2007, 06:52 PM
But seriously folks... or just But seriously Phil, riddle me this: Why should they (fund elite sports programs)?
Why not? Sports, just like the arts, is culture and a country "brands" itself by its culture. Of course, any country can survive without a government-funded sports or arts program, but I think in the end, we would be just a little poorer-spiritually, not financially of course-without both. Again, these expenses are a fraction of a wealthy country's total budget.

As above, arts (to some extent) I get, science / research (to some extent) I get, sports I don't. Call me a hypocrite if you will, but I just don't think there is enough growth potential for society from supporting sports, especially now that sport is a gazillion-dollar industry. Perhaps 100 years ago I understood government funding of sport, now if the government spends a cent on sport I think it should be targeted at keeping the population active, and there's simply not enough translation from couch-potato to activity to be had by spending that cent on elite-funding when there's so much elite sport being corporate-funded.
I agree that corporations should pick-up most of the cost of "elite" sport funding, while government should be more financially involved at the grass roots level. Ideally, Nike, Adidas, Rebok and ABC/BBC/CBS/FOX, etc. should be funding high-level sports...funny thing, though, is that they DO...through advertising, sponsorships and television rights. I think your idea of the amount of funding your government pays for sports programs is skewed very high. I know why that is, and I appreciate the thought. I too, agree that society would do better to focus more energy on the rest of the world's problems, but that's not what the common Joe wants to do. It's not necessarily all the government's fault.

richw76
11-27-2007, 08:52 PM
The lower-middle-class thing was NOT MINE, it was a proposition by Rich76 that was phrased in a way that no-one (of sound morals) could reject...

Me? I'm saying that the more someone earns, the more they should give to those earning less than them. The more someone has, the more they should give. I want people to be Pro-active robin-hoods, if you will...

You can give as much of your time, and money away as you like. However, You have no right to dictate what the rest of us should do. I'm going to stop commenting on individual points. Mainly because you have your opinions, and you are entitled to them.

But since you brought up Scientist I thought that I would comment. My mom works at emory, since I'm a family member I used to be able to work out there. I know several lab techs, and a few researchers at the CDC. I agree they don't earn as much as an International banker, fortune 500 CEO, or stock/finance wheenie, but they are far from middle class. Even the lab techs make almost 6 figures. Also, pharmaceutical companies finance part of the research, and most researchers have deals were even if they don't get the copyright they get their cut, along with the school/facility.

That being said Lucky I'm with you, in your Zoo metaphor. I would rather be able to roam free vs. being locked behind a glass wall.

richw76
11-27-2007, 08:53 PM
To go back to the original point If federer wants to charge for his time, that's fine with me. The tournament organizers could choose not to pay the fee. I'm sure the 500th player in the world would bring just as large a crowd, and sell as many concessions.

And to be honest I would be there. When I went to UofF I watched the tennis matches all the time, those guys were awesome. I wish I had half their talent.

35ft6
11-27-2007, 09:11 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more 35.Which part do you disagree with? "all of it" Okay, but which part and why?

fed_the_savior
11-27-2007, 09:28 PM
You have no right to dictate what the rest of us should do.

But does he have a right to have an opinion about it? Isn't there a difference? Is there a right for you to have an opinion about things you consider morally inferior, or not? Aren't you offering your opinion with equal force? Are we missing the point of the original post? The point was not to "dictate" to anyone, the point was to offer an opinion. That is all, people. Even if nothing can be done about it. God, now it's a sin to care, raising awareness for a good cause. I believe in a free society, but I still wish people cared more than they do, even myself. But no... now that is a sin. Hush and let sleeping dogs lie. Don't disturb our consciences.

richw76
11-27-2007, 09:29 PM
Which part do you disagree with? "all of it" Okay, but which part and why?

Sorry 35. That was meant for Orange. You were right on point. On all your points. :-)

richw76
11-27-2007, 09:44 PM
But does he have a right to have an opinion about it? Isn't there a difference? Is there a right for you to have an opinion about things you consider morally inferior, or not? Aren't you offering your opinion with equal force? Are we missing the point of the original post? The point was not to "dictate" to anyone, the point was to offer an opinion. That is all, people. Even if nothing can be done about it. God, now it's a sin to care, raising awareness for a good cause. I believe in a free society, but I still wish people cared more than they do, even myself. But no... now that is a sin. Hush and let sleeping dogs lie. Don't disturb our consciences.

True. Sometimes I get so focused on being "right" I lose the ability to step back. But you're right and maybe Orange is able to stand up to his own Morales/Ideals. I'm honest with myself. I have a good understanding of my strengths, weaknesses, and shortcomings.

I have nothing but respect for the vast minority of people that selflessly give their money and time to causes they believe in. My Moms one of them, and although I could never do it. It gives her a genuine joy to help people. And I would never want to diminish who she is by judging her by her bank account.

Phil
11-27-2007, 09:47 PM
True. Sometimes I get so focused on being "right" I lose the ability to step back. But you're right and maybe Orange is able to stand up to his own Morales/Ideals. I'm honest with myself. I have a good understanding of my strengths, weaknesses, and shortcomings.

I have nothing but respect for the vast minority of people that selflessly give their money and time to causes they believe in. My Moms one of them, and although I could never do it. It gives her a genuine joy to help people. And I would never want to diminish who she is by judging her by her bank account.
You ought to change your screen name to "Rich Bi*ch". Okay, just kidding there...kind of...:twisted:

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-27-2007, 10:21 PM
There are a million cases in the world where people lead with words, without walking in the shoes of those they are leading. There are women's activists who are male, fitness trainers who are paralysed, psychologists with mental illnesses, etc etc. What matters most is that people choose to lead...

The best leader is one that acts, leads by example- not "do as I say, not as I do."

OrangeOne
11-27-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by OrangeOne http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1904686#post1904686)
There are a million cases in the world where people lead with words, without walking in the shoes of those they are leading. There are women's activists who are male, fitness trainers who are paralysed, psychologists with mental illnesses, etc etc. What matters most is that people choose to lead...


balls;1906999']The best leader is one that acts, leads by example- not "do as I say, not as I do."

Did.... you.... read.... what.... I.... wrote....?

Honestly.

richw76
11-27-2007, 10:31 PM
You ought to change your screen name to "Rich Bi*ch". Okay, just kidding there...kind of...:twisted:

Coming from you Phil, I take that as a compliment ;-)

Deuce
11-27-2007, 11:25 PM
But does he have a right to have an opinion about it? Isn't there a difference? Is there a right for you to have an opinion about things you consider morally inferior, or not? Aren't you offering your opinion with equal force? Are we missing the point of the original post? The point was not to "dictate" to anyone, the point was to offer an opinion. That is all, people. Even if nothing can be done about it. God, now it's a sin to care, raising awareness for a good cause. I believe in a free society, but I still wish people cared more than they do, even myself. But no... now that is a sin. Hush and let sleeping dogs lie. Don't disturb our consciences.
^ Indeed.
Thanks for writing that.

True. Sometimes I get so focused on being "right" I lose the ability to step back. But you're right and maybe Orange is able to stand up to his own Morales/Ideals. I'm honest with myself. I have a good understanding of my strengths, weaknesses, and shortcomings.

I have nothing but respect for the vast minority of people that selflessly give their money and time to causes they believe in. My Moms one of them, and although I could never do it. It gives her a genuine joy to help people. And I would never want to diminish who she is by judging her by her bank account.
So... to summarize... you recognize the value of selflessness, but you yourself cannot be selfless, due to your personal weaknesses and shortcomings.

Well, then... perhaps you could strive to fix yourself.

CanadianChic
11-27-2007, 11:29 PM
Quite obviously, this is not a "reimbursement", but a reward, as it is offered only to medalists.
And financial reward for performance entirely opposes the genuinely noble Olympic ideal.

Why do you see as such a problem with these small monetary awards Deuce? The genuinely noble Olympic ideal? Who are you trying to kid with that statement? Take away the fixed judges, the steroid abuse, the accusations of steroid abuse and perhaps you are coming a little closer to your "ideal".

CanadianChic
11-27-2007, 11:32 PM
I live on $12,000 per year in North American culture. By choice. That's well below the claimed 'poverty line'.
And yet, I live quite comfortably.
Go figure.



This explains a lot Deuce. I am curious if this income is a result of choice or necessity? I assumed you were a social worker, yet the income is higher for that profession.

35ft6
11-27-2007, 11:45 PM
Sorry 35. That was meant for Orange. You were right on point. On all your points. :-) Shoot. My bad. I'm not following this thread thoroughly enough to recognize sarcasm. :)

Deuce
11-27-2007, 11:49 PM
Why do you see as such a problem with these small monetary awards Deuce? The genuinely noble Olympic ideal? Who are you trying to kid with that statement? Take away the fixed judges, the steroid abuse, the accusations of steroid abuse and perhaps you are coming a little closer to your "ideal".
And so let's add to the things that take away from the Olympic ideal, right?
In case you haven't heard, the elements you mention - steroids, dishonest judges, etc. are viewed as negative elements by all, and people would like to see these problems eradicated in order to maintain the Olympic ideal. The financial rewards for medalists is a government initiative - and it seems to have gone unnoticed by them (voluntarily so) that this practise totally ooposes the Olympic ideal, as well.
The problem is that most won't even realize it, because the great majority in this ill culture have been bred to believe that money is the only way to measure success.

This explains a lot Deuce. I am curious if this income is a result of choice or necessity? I assumed you were a social worker, yet the income is higher for that profession.
The answer to your question is within the portion of my post that you quoted - please read.
You can assume anything you like. I could never be a SW - far too much BS and too many inherent restrictions involved - and these restrictions and BS far too often restrict the amount of help that can be given to those who need it. I prefer more freedom and less money.

But, as disapointing as it may be to you, I really am not going to help you to make this thread about me. So we'll leave it at that.

CanadianChic
11-27-2007, 11:59 PM
And so let's add to the things that take away from the Olympic ideal, right?
In case you haven't heard, the elements you mention - steroids, dishonest judges, etc. are viewed as negative elements by all, and people would like to see these problems eradicated in order to maintain the Olympic ideal. The financial rewards for medalists is a government initiative - and it seems to have gone unnoticed by them (voluntarily so) that this practise totally ooposes the Olympic ideal, as well.
The problem is that most won't even realize it, because the great majority in this ill culture have been bred to believe that money is the only way to measure success.


The answer to your question is within the portion of my post that you quoted - please read.
You can assume anything you like. I could never be a SW - far too much BS and too many inherent restrictions involved - and these restrictions and BS far too often restrict the amount of help that can be given to those who need it. I prefer more freedom and less money.

But, as disapointing as it may be to you, I really am not going to help you to make this thread about me. So we'll leave it at that.

Well, I believe that the government should financially support our athletes during their training years. It is ridiculous that most of our athletes are holding down full time jobs while training to compete while many of their competitors do not have to grind it out as they are already being compensated. I see nothing wrong with offering a financial incentive/rewards for a job well done. You can still carry the "tainted" ideal of the games while pocketing a cheque.

My bad, I did read the post again and now see it is a choice you have made. You turned this thread into you when you divulged personal information about yourself. Why are you so against the notion that someone may be genuinely interested in what you have to say? Is it because the someone is me Deuce? I forgot that in your eyes I'm the anti-Christ. Carry on....

OrangeOne
11-28-2007, 12:01 AM
But does he have a right to have an opinion about it? Isn't there a difference? Is there a right for you to have an opinion about things you consider morally inferior, or not? Aren't you offering your opinion with equal force? Are we missing the point of the original post? The point was not to "dictate" to anyone, the point was to offer an opinion. That is all, people. Even if nothing can be done about it. God, now it's a sin to care, raising awareness for a good cause. I believe in a free society, but I still wish people cared more than they do, even myself. But no... now that is a sin. Hush and let sleeping dogs lie. Don't disturb our consciences.

I can't believe I missed this one, can I be the second to thank you for writing it? ....you've captured my intents in this thread perfectly.

Racketdesign
11-28-2007, 07:23 AM
Is it because the someone is me Deuce? I forgot that in your eyes I'm the anti-Christ. Carry on....

We must be related CanadianChic

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-28-2007, 08:11 AM
Did.... you.... read.... what.... I.... wrote....?

Honestly.

Clearly you and I have completely different definitions for the word LEAD.

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-28-2007, 08:12 AM
Did.... you.... read.... what.... I.... wrote....?

Honestly.

Clearly you and I have completely different definitions for the word LEAD.
Can....you.....read.....what.....I.....wrote....?

OrangeOne
11-28-2007, 04:22 PM
balls;1907581']Clearly you and I have completely different definitions for the word LEAD.
Can....you.....read.....what.....I.....wrote....?

I will not quote, for the THIRD time, my examples of people who simply CANNOT lead by doing:

There are women's activists who are male, fitness trainers who are paralysed, psychologists with mental illnesses, etc etc. What matters most is that people choose to lead...
If I'm male (and I am), and I believe in women's issues - can I not lead a women's right's march?
If I'm living in Sydney in a decent house (which I am) - can I not help lead and motivate people to fight against world poverty without being in poverty myself?
If I'm head of the US military (which I'm not) - should I be marching the infantry into battle with a gun in one hand, or should I be leading in a massive ops room somewhere?
If I'm the NSW state premier (also not) - should I be going to get my medical degree as I'm also the head of the state's medical program?
If I'm Roger Federer's coach, do I need to be able to hit a better down-the-line forehand to explain to him how he should, do I need to quickly get to my 13th GS win so that I can lead him in relaxing in the 14th?Leaders should be knowledgeable, experienced, and they should earn (and display) respect. I will follow any leader who can exhibit those 3 qualities, and when I exhibit those 3 qualities, I expect people to follow me.

Now - you wanted to debate leadership? Bring it on.

jhhachamp
11-29-2007, 08:48 PM
Unfortunately, humans are just about always going to be greedy and think about themselves before others. It is nice to think about a world where everyone is middle class, well off, and content, but unfortunately, we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes. It is hard for people to truly care for others when they are hard-wired to succeed and think about themselves first. For many it is probably impossible.

richw76
11-30-2007, 09:34 AM
Unfortunately, humans are just about always going to be greedy and think about themselves before others. It is nice to think about a world where everyone is middle class, well off, and content, but unfortunately, we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes. It is hard for people to truly care for others when they are hard-wired to succeed and think about themselves first. For many it is probably impossible.

How about almost every species. I'm sure there is some anaerobic bacteria that lives 10 miles down some cavern that has no predators or competition for resources. We finally have something to aspire to. No needs or wants... like the bacteria..........

Klatu Verata Necktie
11-30-2007, 11:21 AM
How about almost every species. I'm sure there is some anaerobic bacteria that lives 10 miles down some cavern that has no predators or competition for resources. We finally have something to aspire to. No needs or wants... like the bacteria..........

I aspire to be Plankton

http://www.nicktv.it/imgHits/tv/programmi/entertainers/40_foto.jpg

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-30-2007, 12:19 PM
I will not quote, for the THIRD time, my examples of people who simply CANNOT lead by doing:

There are women's activists who are male, fitness trainers who are paralysed, psychologists with mental illnesses, etc etc. What matters most is that people choose to lead...
If I'm male (and I am), and I believe in women's issues - can I not lead a women's right's march?
If I'm living in Sydney in a decent house (which I am) - can I not help lead and motivate people to fight against world poverty without being in poverty myself?
If I'm head of the US military (which I'm not) - should I be marching the infantry into battle with a gun in one hand, or should I be leading in a massive ops room somewhere?
If I'm the NSW state premier (also not) - should I be going to get my medical degree as I'm also the head of the state's medical program?
If I'm Roger Federer's coach, do I need to be able to hit a better down-the-line forehand to explain to him how he should, do I need to quickly get to my 13th GS win so that I can lead him in relaxing in the 14th?Leaders should be knowledgeable, experienced, and they should earn (and display) respect. I will follow any leader who can exhibit those 3 qualities, and when I exhibit those 3 qualities, I expect people to follow me.

Now - you wanted to debate leadership? Bring it on.

The issue is not about the ironies and paradoxes of men leading women, or children leading adults, or mentally ill psychiatrists. My point, that I won't repeat for the third time, is people who are capable of doing what it is they critisize everyone else for not doing! People who sit on their *****es doing nothing but complaining about Federer not donating more to charity, when instead they can be spending that lost time ****-chatting by doing charity work. I'm postive that Federer spend more time working for charitable causes, which can be more valuable than the dollar amount donations anyway!

shwetty[tennis]balls
11-30-2007, 12:46 PM
Unfortunately, humans are just about always going to be greedy and think about themselves before others. It is nice to think about a world where everyone is middle class, well off, and content, but unfortunately, we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes. It is hard for people to truly care for others when they are hard-wired to succeed and think about themselves first. For many it is probably impossible.

Are you trying to say that the middle class is more charitable than any other?

Also, If humans weren't the product of Darwin's survival of the fittest, would we even be here. Unfortunately, even the middle class rides on the fact that there are some that aren't mediocre, and excel and the profit gained by these individuals in turn profits everyone else. By profits I don't just mean money. It can be breakthroughs in technology, medicine, economics, etc.
You seem to contradict yourself by saying that if no one excels and succeeds where others haven't, the world would be perfect. Truth is, without the upper class, there can be no middle class.
My qusetion, can the great basis of America's class distinction (upper, middle, lower) exist without greed-i.e. the desire to do well without having government tell you what you are going to make, what you're not going to make? Without greed, unfortunately, there would be no middle class. My argument for this is based on the very foundation upon which the U.S. has succeeded in creating the middle class you so enjoy-property ownership. If you want a middle class there will need to be the necessary evil of greed.

Trinity
11-30-2007, 01:32 PM
I live on $12,000 per year in North American culture. By choice. That's well below the claimed 'poverty line'.
And yet, I live quite comfortably.
Go figure.

One reason I live comfortably is because I make intelligent choices. But the main reason I live comfortably on that amount is because my material wants are few.
I derive my fulfillment from other sources. Dare I say it's a more genuine fulfillment than those who 'fulfill' themselves by drowning themselves in material and luxury.

Even more sadly, this sickness is spreading all across the planet.

Yes, but I am guessing you aspire to earn more?

richw76
11-30-2007, 01:44 PM
balls;1912165']I'm postive that Federer spend more time working for charitable causes, which can be more valuable than the dollar amount donations anyway!
My assertion is that federer has no OBLIGATION moral or social. To give charities discounts/freebies or to volunteer or do anything. If he chooses to "give back" great for him. Also, there are lots of ways to give back. For example building a low income retirement community, and keeping the property clean/affordable/safe. People can make money AND make a positive impact on people's lives.


balls;1912213']Are you trying to say that the middle class is more charitable than any other?

Truth is, without the upper class, there can be no middle class.
My qusetion, can the great basis of America's class distinction (upper, middle, lower) exist without greed-i.e. the desire to do well without having government tell you what you are going to make, what you're not going to make? Without greed, unfortunately, there would be no middle class. My argument for this is based on the very foundation upon which the U.S. has succeeded in creating the middle class you so enjoy-property ownership. If you want a middle class there will need to be the necessary evil of greed.

I think we could survive and flourish w/o greed, but not without ambition and hope. Some want to be the best violinist ever, some a captain of industry, some a mechanic. That's me I want to be a mechanic... and architect..interior designer?. anyway :-)

This type of motivation works in a star trek like world because there are no longer any needs that are unfulfilled, and people are able to rise above the wants, or they can leave for a different society. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also, in star trek they had a third world war that killed off alot of the population, and refocused peoples agendas.

OrangeOne
11-30-2007, 05:05 PM
It's nice to see that many are at least starting to give a head-nod towards the idea that not all competition needs to result in a monetary outcome (again, competition has existed since survival of the fittest).

Competition, aspirations, needs, wants... all can be so many other things than monetary / $-value based.

But back to the topic: I choose to want the people with the most to help others, and in this very case, I maintain that Fed and Sampras have shown themselves to be greedy. Ultimately, this greed may translate into greater good for all (maybe they'll build their respective profiles, make a lot more money, and thus be able to give more from an awareness and financial position at a later date).

Maybe, equally, they're not the sort of people to feel any obligation to give back. Like anyone with 100million in the bank, I choose to be disappointed in them. Like anyone with large amounts of fame that can be put to good use, and the money to give them freedom of life, I choose to be disappointed in them.

jhhachamp
11-30-2007, 05:30 PM
balls;1912165']The issue is not about the ironies and paradoxes of men leading women, or children leading adults, or mentally ill psychiatrists. My point, that I won't repeat for the third time, is people who are capable of doing what it is they critisize everyone else for not doing! People who sit on their *****es doing nothing but complaining about Federer not donating more to charity, when instead they can be spending that lost time ****-chatting by doing charity work. I'm postive that Federer spend more time working for charitable causes, which can be more valuable than the dollar amount donations anyway!

Ok, and why are you concerned with making this point? Does it even apply here? I understand what you are saying, just not why you are saying it. You are trying to argue something entirely different from the original topic which is relatively unimportant.

jhhachamp
11-30-2007, 05:36 PM
balls;1912213']Are you trying to say that the middle class is more charitable than any other?

No...I have a feeling you have no understanding of what I wrote.

balls;1912213']Also, If humans weren't the product of Darwin's survival of the fittest, would we even be here. Unfortunately, even the middle class rides on the fact that there are some that aren't mediocre, and excel and the profit gained by these individuals in turn profits everyone else. By profits I don't just mean money. It can be breakthroughs in technology, medicine, economics, etc.
You seem to contradict yourself by saying that if no one excels and succeeds where others haven't, the world would be perfect. Truth is, without the upper class, there can be no middle class.
My qusetion, can the great basis of America's class distinction (upper, middle, lower) exist without greed-i.e. the desire to do well without having government tell you what you are going to make, what you're not going to make? Without greed, unfortunately, there would be no middle class. My argument for this is based on the very foundation upon which the U.S. has succeeded in creating the middle class you so enjoy-property ownership. If you want a middle class there will need to be the necessary evil of greed.

Yep, I am pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what I wrote. I did not contradict myself, and all of the things you think I seem to say, I simply do not.

Deuce
12-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Unfortunately, humans are just about always going to be greedy and think about themselves before others. It is nice to think about a world where everyone is middle class, well off, and content, but unfortunately, we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes. It is hard for people to truly care for others when they are hard-wired to succeed and think about themselves first. For many it is probably impossible.
It is also human nature to possess compassion for others - a compassion which results in action.
Well - it used to be human nature, at least.

There is no question in my mind that people are more selfish, more greedy, and less compassionate toward others today that they were 50 years ago. Less and less every year.
I don't buy the claim that greed is human nature. Greed is learned behaviour. So is sharing, to a degree.
But compassion - that's human nature.
We simply live further away from our natures than we used to.

Yes, but I am guessing you aspire to earn more?
No.
Why in the world would you think that?
I don't need an LCD TV.
Hell - I don't even want one.

shwetty[tennis]balls
12-01-2007, 11:04 PM
My assertion is that federer has no OBLIGATION moral or social. To give charities discounts/freebies or to volunteer or do anything. If he chooses to "give back" great for him. Also, there are lots of ways to give back. For example building a low income retirement community, and keeping the property clean/affordable/safe. People can make money AND make a positive impact on people's lives.




I think we could survive and flourish w/o greed, but not without ambition and hope. Some want to be the best violinist ever, some a captain of industry, some a mechanic. That's me I want to be a mechanic... and architect..interior designer?. anyway :-)

This type of motivation works in a star trek like world because there are no longer any needs that are unfulfilled, and people are able to rise above the wants, or they can leave for a different society. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also, in star trek they had a third world war that killed off alot of the population, and refocused peoples agendas.
What the hell are you talking about? Next thing you know you'll be using Pee-Wee's Playhouse for blueprints for a perfect world. I can't even argue with you, you just don't make sense. You've completely thrown me off. Star Trek! What the hell???? You should run for president! Beam me up Scotty!

shwetty[tennis]balls
12-01-2007, 11:15 PM
Ok, and why are you concerned with making this point? Does it even apply here? I understand what you are saying, just not why you are saying it. You are trying to argue something entirely different from the original topic which is relatively unimportant.
Does it apply? Unimportant?! And your point is so much more correct than mine?!
What I am trying to say, not in any confrontational way to you personally, is that so many are concerned with Federer and Sampras not being more charitable. "They have too much money?!" "Make them give it to charity?!" That's what this entire thread is about! I'm simply making the argument that they who are posting these type of hipocritical responses ought to worry about themselves, and the many different ways they can give to charity, instead of wasting time complaining about pros w/ money. This is what peaves me. I'm not saying that I necessarily even agree or not. I uderstand exactly what you're saying, and hopefully now, you understand what I'm trying to say, my point.

jhhachamp
12-02-2007, 04:21 PM
balls;1914798']Does it apply? Unimportant?! And your point is so much more correct than mine?!
What I am trying to say, not in any confrontational way to you personally, is that so many are concerned with Federer and Sampras not being more charitable. "They have too much money?!" "Make them give it to charity?!" That's what this entire thread is about! I'm simply making the argument that they who are posting these type of hipocritical responses ought to worry about themselves, and the many different ways they can give to charity, instead of wasting time complaining about pros w/ money. This is what peaves me. I'm not saying that I necessarily even agree or not. I uderstand exactly what you're saying, and hopefully now, you understand what I'm trying to say, my point.

I understood your point the first time.

shwetty[tennis]balls
12-02-2007, 08:13 PM
I understood your point the first time.
If you truly understood it, than you would understand how it relates to the thread!

richw76
12-02-2007, 09:51 PM
balls;1914786']What the hell are you talking about? Next thing you know you'll be using Pee-Wee's Playhouse for blueprints for a perfect world. I can't even argue with you, you just don't make sense. You've completely thrown me off. Star Trek! What the hell???? You should run for president! Beam me up Scotty!

I'm glad you can't argue with me, since I have no desire to argue with anyone. I'm glad to read that you think I would make a good president. And just an FYI the "Beam me up Scotty!" quote was actually never said on any original episode of Star Trek. In the 4th Movie, I believe Kirk said "Scotty, beam me up".

jhhachamp
12-02-2007, 09:53 PM
balls;1916336']If you truly understood it, than you would understand how it relates to the thread!

You keep on saying how people should not worry about what others do so much and should do more themselves. How do you know that them discussing these things and criticizing other people means that they are not doing lots of good things themselves? It is very possible to both criticize others and also do good things yourself at the same time.

tbini87
12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
it is possible to do both, but i think the point is that what others do with their money is totally their business... if a poor person gives away their last penny, or if a rich person doesn't give a penny away for free that is totally up to them. you can judge them if you want, but you only have control of your own actions, and talking about what others do is not really any of your business.

35ft6
12-02-2007, 11:21 PM
Unfortunately, humans are just about always going to be greedy and think about themselves before others. It is nice to think about a world where everyone is middle class, well off, and content, but unfortunately, we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes.Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evolution and he'd probably disagree with the underlying idea of your post.

Anyway, people are very generous. Spirit of cooperation and reciprocal altruism are also mainstays of human nature. People will sacrifice their lives for their loved ones and so forth.It is hard for people to truly care for others when they are hard-wired to succeed and think about themselves first. For many it is probably impossible. For most people this is incredibly easy. Not sure where you live where you don't see people caring about other people on a daily basis. What you're describing are psycho and sociopaths. And I'm using those terms in the medical sense.

Serve em Up
12-03-2007, 05:06 AM
I don't think survival of the fittest is true of most people. People are very generous. In fact, Americans give more than any other nation. If you doubt that here is a link.

The important thing to recognize is that giving is a choice. It is not for the government to dictate how wealth is redistributed. There are selfish people both rich and poor. While me may not like those who are greedy and rich, it is their right to spend how they see fit. I believe the majority of the rich give generously as the article indicates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/

Also related to this issue is the constant harangue of liberals condeming those greedy conserviatives. Well it turns out that the greedy republicans give more as a percent of income than the liberals do. Here's another link. The story goes on to suggest that the difference is because liberals are expecting the government to do the giving through taxes and redistributing wealth (not because they are more selfish) and the conservatives believe it is a personal responsibility to be generous and give. It also turned out that the middle class is the least generous of all.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9323

tbini87
12-03-2007, 01:17 PM
I don't think survival of the fittest is true of most people. People are very generous. In fact, Americans give more than any other nation. If you doubt that here is a link.

The important thing to recognize is that giving is a choice. It is not for the government to dictate how wealth is redistributed. There are selfish people both rich and poor. While me may not like those who are greedy and rich, it is their right to spend how they see fit. I believe the majority of the rich give generously as the article indicates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/

Also related to this issue is the constant harangue of liberals condeming those greedy conserviatives. Well it turns out that the greedy republicans give more as a percent of income than the liberals do. Here's another link. The story goes on to suggest that the difference is because liberals are expecting the government to do the giving through taxes and redistributing wealth (not because they are more selfish) and the conservatives believe it is a personal responsibility to be generous and give. It also turned out that the middle class is the least generous of all.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9323

don't have time to read the links, but i have heard of plenty of evidence showing that kind of data. pretty interesting. will try to read them when i can.

35ft6
12-03-2007, 08:14 PM
I don't think survival of the fittest is true of most people. People are very generous. Yes. It's foolish to think you can survive all by yourself. Even lower animals live in groups. Bigger numbers means better shot at survival, and animals can't co-exist when they're all being selfish. Even among monkeys, being selfish and anti-social will get you ostracized.

35ft6
12-03-2007, 08:26 PM
The important thing to recognize is that giving is a choice.Not really. You have to pay taxes.It is not for the government to dictate how wealth is redistributed. What do you mean? For example, then should corporations be disallowed from lobbying in order to influence policies that will allow them to keep more money? Why do conservatives fixate on government mandated "wealth distribution" only as it might apply to evil social programs like health care and good education? When companies lobby governments so they can pay less taxes, that affects wealth distribution. Ditto for when they pay to have laws on monopolies changed. Same when they pay to have bankruptcy reform, for for Bush to try to private social security. Examples abound, but mostly they're afraid of medicine for sick people and help for poor people.There are selfish people both rich and poor. While me may not like those who are greedy and rich, it is their right to spend how they see fit.But why should rich people have to actually PAY less taxes by percentage than people making way less?I believe the majority of the rich give generously as the article indicates.

A few misleading things in this article.[quote]In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany. But Britain and France offer far more socialized benefits to its citizens.The biggest chunk of the money, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, goes to religious organizations. I don't really consider religion a charity. Don't see why they don't have to pay taxes. Catholic Church is biggest landowner in Manhattan, for example, last time I checked. Religions get to operate like for-profit enterprises that don't have to pay taxes. It's a racket.

But that's not to say that the USA isn't, in fact, generous.Also related to this issue is the constant harangue of liberals condeming those greedy conserviatives. Well it turns out that the greedy republicans give more as a percent of income than the liberals do. Here's another link. The story goes on to suggest that the difference is because liberals are expecting the government to do the giving through taxes and redistributing wealth (not because they are more selfish) and the conservatives believe it is a personal responsibility to be generous and give. It also turned out that the middle class is the least generous of all.

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9323But how much of it is to their own churches? Remember:The biggest chunk of the money, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, goes to religious organizations.John Stossel is a corporate shill. Libertarian my balls.

jhhachamp
12-03-2007, 10:00 PM
Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evolution and he'd probably disagree with the underlying idea of your post.

Why do you think he would disagree with the underlying idea?

Anyway, people are very generous. Spirit of cooperation and reciprocal altruism are also mainstays of human nature. People will sacrifice their lives for their loved ones and so forth. For most people this is incredibly easy. Not sure where you live where you don't see people caring about other people on a daily basis. What you're describing are psycho and sociopaths. And I'm using those terms in the medical sense.

I think that people can be both caring and self-centered at the same time. People are caring and generous with those that they are close with, but they don't care so much about the starving people in Africa they don't know and probably don't know much about. Do some people truly care about everyone, and not just they know? Sure. But there are also plenty that don't. If everyone cared about everyone in the world equally as they care about themselves, the world would be much more balanced.

35ft6
12-03-2007, 11:55 PM
Why do you think he would disagree with the underlying idea? Do you know the book I'm referring to, The Selfish Gene? This is from Wikipedia:Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a provocative way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual).Quite different from:... we are battling Darwin's theory, survival of the fittest. The evolution of humans was set in place long ago when those who were most ambitious and driven to succeed survived and reproduced, passing along their genes.But not just that, people who were the most giving and cooperative could also have great success in surviving. Fitness can mean all sorts of things. Being able to crush skulls can help you survive, but so could helping to mend skulls.I think that people can be both caring and self-centered at the same time. Okay, but earlier you were really putting a strong emphasis on the selfish part.People are caring and generous with those that they are close with, but they don't care so much about the starving people in Africa they don't know and probably don't know much about.You haven't noticed the amount of "care" we've expressed for 3rd world countries, even if the politics gets in the way of meaningful changes in many instances?Do some people truly care about everyone, and not just they know? Sure.Everyone? Like all 6.5 billion? We're not talking about that. But if we take it on a case by case basis, even you might be inclined to jump into a lake to save a drowning 3 yo.But there are also plenty that don't. If everyone cared about everyone in the world equally as they care about themselves, the world would be much more balanced. Some people care more about others then themselves. I'd be willing to bet there are even people YOU would die for. For everybody? Lets not get ridiculous. If you literally mean everybody in the world, then no, not only does such a person not exist, the one who cares for everybody, but I'm pretty sure nobody's even met everybody on this planet. But can people look at a picture of starving African family and feel empathy for complete strangers rendered in 2-dimensions? Yes. Can people see pictures of men and women jumping off the twin towers holding hands and feel choked up? Yes. Do people write checks for $10 to feed some nameless orphan halfway across the globe? Every day. I guess it's all a matter of what you choose to fixate on.

Serve em Up
12-04-2007, 05:05 AM
35ft6,

"Not really, you have to pay taxes."

True, and I have no problem with taxes that are needed to provide basic public services, transportation, defense, public education, etc.

It is when taxes are created solely for the purpose of redistributing income that I have a problem.

Boondoogle pork barrell projects, stupid ineffective social programs, are all wasteful expenses. The liberals use these to take money from the "rich", filter the money through an expensive government beauracracy, and forward a decidely lesser amount of services to those perceived as "poor".

When they decide how to fund their bloated programs, they immediately look for the guy with the big house, nice car etc and villify him as a fat cat that ought to pay more taxes. It doesn;t matter that that guy probably pays more in taxes than 98% of americans anyway. He should pay more and more and more. Then, at some point the libs claim complain that the middle class and the poor need a tax cut. Then they try to structure the cut so that they make sure those who aren't paying any taxes anyway get the cut. If you cut taxes, doesn't it make sense that the cut goes to the people that actually pay the taxes?

Government should collect taxes to provide for the common defense, and interstate transportation etc. Let charity provide to the have nots. Keep the government out.

Corporate welfare needs to end. Multi billion dollar corporations with an effective tax rate less than 10 % is a crime. Corporation ought to have the same effective tax rate as individuals.

35ft6
12-04-2007, 08:31 AM
Corporate welfare needs to end. Multi billion dollar corporations with an effective tax rate less than 10 % is a crime. Corporation ought to have the same effective tax rate as individuals.Totally. The whole privatize profits, socialize risk corporate strategy needs to end yesterday.

jhhachamp
12-04-2007, 07:01 PM
Do you know the book I'm referring to, The Selfish Gene? This is from Wikipedia:Quite different from:But not just that, people who were the most giving and cooperative could also have great success in surviving. Fitness can mean all sorts of things. Being able to crush skulls can help you survive, but so could helping to mend skulls. Okay, but earlier you were really putting a strong emphasis on the selfish part.You haven't noticed the amount of "care" we've expressed for 3rd world countries, even if the politics gets in the way of meaningful changes in many instances?Everyone? Like all 6.5 billion? We're not talking about that. But if we take it on a case by case basis, even you might be inclined to jump into a lake to save a drowning 3 yo. Some people care more about others then themselves. I'd be willing to bet there are even people YOU would die for. For everybody? Lets not get ridiculous. If you literally mean everybody in the world, then no, not only does such a person not exist, the one who cares for everybody, but I'm pretty sure nobody's even met everybody on this planet. But can people look at a picture of starving African family and feel empathy for complete strangers rendered in 2-dimensions? Yes. Can people see pictures of men and women jumping off the twin towers holding hands and feel choked up? Yes. Do people write checks for $10 to feed some nameless orphan halfway across the globe? Every day. I guess it's all a matter of what you choose to fixate on.

I don't really understand that Darwin passage all that well. Anyway, yes, I should have been more clear that I did not think that being completely self-centered is helpful in survival. Having close friends and family who love and care about you helps a great deal in your survival. I don't think that being extremely generous to those worse off than you outside of your family and friends is very helpful to survival long ago.

You are certainly right, it is all about what you choose to fixate on. There are certainly lots of all different kinds of people in the world. You make many good points representing the good in the world. I guess what we could agree on is that the world is far from perfect, but it could certainly be much worse off than it currently is in regards to these issues.

Deuce
12-04-2007, 10:57 PM
I guess what we could agree on is that the world is far from perfect, but it could certainly be much worse off than it currently is in regards to these issues.
When we compare something to a lower standard - to something worse - it will never result in improvement or progress.
Saying "things could be worse" is a cop-out. All it ensures, at best, is the status quo - and usually brings deterioration..

As long as there are worse examples or scenarios than the status quo, the majority seem content - as if mediocrity is something to take pride in.

Things will never improve unless we say "things could be better", and take action to make it so. This is true both individually, and as a collective species who inhabit this planet.

jhhachamp
12-05-2007, 08:56 PM
When we compare something to a lower standard - to something worse - it will never result in improvement or progress.
Saying "things could be worse" is a cop-out. All it ensures, at best, is the status quo - and usually brings deterioration..

As long as there are worse examples or scenarios than the status quo, the majority seem content - as if mediocrity is something to take pride in.

Things will never improve unless we say "things could be better", and take action to make it so. This is true both individually, and as a collective species who inhabit this planet.

I agree. 10 char

shwetty[tennis]balls
12-06-2007, 08:33 AM
You keep on saying how people should not worry about what others do so much and should do more themselves. How do you know that them discussing these things and criticizing other people means that they are not doing lots of good things themselves? It is very possible to both criticize others and also do good things yourself at the same time.

Yeah, right, uh huh!

fed_the_savior
12-06-2007, 09:56 PM
Henry Kravis makes $51,369 PER HOUR. You pay more tax %
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8RsFwsODzE&feature=bz303

richw76
12-06-2007, 10:32 PM
Henry Kravis makes $51,369 PER HOUR. You pay more tax %
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8RsFwsODzE&feature=bz303

I agree. Most of the High Finance guys are completely useless to the world. I found the video very manipulative. What's the point of having random poor people crying. Why not just state the facts and not do a Michael Moore. Truth is these guys are mostly scum bag sociopaths that would sell out their own mothers to get ahead. I just hate when people with an agenda try to manipulate and grand stand when it's unnecessary.

35ft6
12-06-2007, 11:20 PM
I agree. Most of the High Finance guys are completely useless to the world. I found the video very manipulative. What's the point of having random poor people crying. I didn't see the crying. Where is it?Why not just state the facts and not do a Michael Moore.Did you ever have to write an essay in college? It's useful to frame statistics with a case in point to show how a real case scenario might play out. For instance, if you made a short film about orphans, at some point, it might be illuminating to show what an orphan goes through, how his paperwork is processed, what his daily routine is, etc. Manipulative? God forbid people might feel outraged about true injustices.Truth is these guys are mostly scum bag sociopaths that would sell out their own mothers to get ahead. I just hate when people with an agenda try to manipulate and grand stand when it's unnecessary. Who are you talking about? The people who made the movie or Henry Kravis and those like him?