stevil Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Define rich?A person that owns a 50+ inch TV?A person that indulges in restaurant food?A person that goes on exotic holidays?A person that owns a business and employs lots of people?A person that manufactures a product and sells it globally at affordable prices?When do you define a person to be rich?
r2Dtoo Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Well, it used to be the top 1%. Now it's the top 2%. I wonder how long it's going to take to get to the top 47%. Edited December 23, 2012 by r2Dtoo
BarbTherese Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) I have none of the above, in fact far far less, nor aspire to same - and yet regard myself as rich beyond measure .....in fact I once had the above (bar the final point on the list) and probably far more and never ever even passingly think to look back with desire, quite to the contrary. "Rich" is always going to be a matter of one's personal definition and definitions are not necessarily the fact of the matter. The pearl of great price" http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=46#x Edited December 23, 2012 by BarbaraTherese
theculturewarrior Posted December 23, 2012 Author Posted December 23, 2012 All threatening language will be investigated. Every IP address that has connected to Phatmass will be investigated. I have no choice but to act, and I have to protect my family. With an F.
Winchester Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 All threatening language will be investigated. Every IP address that has connected to Phatmass will be investigated. I have no choice but to act, and I have to protect my family. With an F.
Anastasia13 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Well, it used to be the top 1%. Now it's the top 2%. I wonder how long it's going to take to get to the top 47%. It will be the top 53%. The other 47% are dependent on the gov., don't you know?
Winchester Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 It will be the top 53%. The other 47% are dependent on the gov., don't you know? We are all dependent on the government. Most especially the 1%. Who else protects them from competition in the free market?
BarbTherese Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I feel sorry for the worldly wealthy, life can be very hard for them.
Ed Normile Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The rich are blessed with either the ability or the will to acquire wealth. There are those whose parents were the ones blessed with these abilities and they were blessed with wealth by their parents. How they handle that wealth in life is of course up to them and will affect their salvation. Brabara Therese, do you feel sorry for the worldly wealthy like Billy Graham who do great works and charity ? Or is this pity for those you perceive as the " bad rich " What do you base your sorrow on ? Is it the medias view popularized these days that they stole monies from the poor, if so how do you feel about business owners who hire people allowing them to enjoy the comforts of life such as a roof over their heads and a full stomach and the ability to provide for their children, should they not be lauded as the providers they are ? ed
add Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Era Might Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Is it the medias view popularized these days that they stole monies from the poor, if so how do you feel about business owners who hire people allowing them to enjoy the comforts of life such as a roof over their heads and a full stomach and the ability to provide for their children, should they not be lauded as the providers they are ? The earth used to provide these things. Now rich people do.
stevil Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The earth used to provide these things. Now rich people do.Just think where USA would be if they didn't have people taking the initiative to develop industry. No companies, no jobs, no running water, no electricity, no sewerage systems, no tv, no internet, no university, no hospitals, no roads.Just lots and lots of starving, desperate people.
4588686 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="stevil" data-cid="2526744" data-time="1356290244"><p> Just think where USA would be if they didn't have people taking the initiative to develop industry. No companies, no jobs, no running water, no electricity, no sewerage systems, no tv, no internet, no university, no hospitals, no roads.<br /> Just lots and lots of starving, desperate people.</p></blockquote> That's interesting that all rich people have initiative and only rich people have initiative.
Era Might Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Just think where USA would be if they didn't have people taking the initiative to develop industry. No companies, no jobs, no running water, no electricity, no sewerage systems, no tv, no internet, no university, no hospitals, no roads. Just lots and lots of starving, desperate people. I'm not against industry within human limits and within the system we have decided upon. My point was just that we need "rich people" because that's how we devised the system. We have created a society where we are dependent on products and services provided by others. Our society is a dream society for engineers, managers, planners, employers. It's a society with masses of people who can be "provided for" and brought under your ideas and influence. Religion used to fill the role that marketing departments now play. Edited December 23, 2012 by Era Might
4588686 Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Era Might" data-cid="2526748" data-time="1356291874"><p> I'm not against industry within human limits and within the system we have decided upon. My point was just that we need "rich people" because that's how we devised the system. We have created a society where we are dependent on products and services provided by others. Our society is a dream society for engineers, managers, planners, employers. It's a society with masses of people who can be "provided for" and brought under your ideas and influence. Religion used to fill the role that marketing departments now play.</p></blockquote> Go read Atlas Shrugged until you understand why Stevil is right.
stevil Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 That's interesting that all rich people have initiative and only rich people have initiative.There are many failures too,Many wouldbe rich whom risked it all and lost in the economic game.
4588686 Posted December 24, 2012 Posted December 24, 2012 <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="stevil" data-cid="2526760" data-time="1356296275"><p> There are many failures too,<br /> Many wouldbe rich whom risked it all and lost in the economic game.</p></blockquote> And a lot more rich people who were just given their advantage. Unlike your mythology my statement there is backed up by stats which I'm happy to cite.
BarbTherese Posted December 24, 2012 Posted December 24, 2012 http://www.news.com.au/national/dame-elisabeth-murdoch-honouring-an-extraordinary-life/story-fncynjr2-1226538330989 it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Well said. It is not at all impossible for the rich to enter The Kingdom, but it can be hard, difficult. Having been long ago in a position of rather well off in a wordly sense, I know how difficult it can be to say "Enough" - this is sufficient and there are far better and more important things on which to spend money. In speaking of the camel and the eye of a needle, Jesus was not stating an impossibility. Rather the eye of the needle was a gate in the Jerusalem wall. After dark, main gates were closed and only the eye of the needle left open. This small gate meant that travellers and traders on camels had to dismount and the camels had to go down on their knees and crawl through the gate known as "the eye of the needle" . Here inAustralia Dame Elisabeth Murdoch recently died. She was an outstanding woman who did wonderful things with her wealth with disadvantaged others' interests in mind. She was outspoken,wise yet humble and self effacing and the most ordinary of Australians in her demeanour :http://www.news.com.au/national/dame-elisabeth-murdoch-honouring-an-extraordinary-life/story-fncynjr2-1226538330989 I have long maintained that parents for example have the right and duty to provide for their children and comfortably if able. However, it is also the right and duty of parents to ensure that they have their own values straight, in priority and strive to pass these on to their children and by example - and this can be another hard or difficult task if one has wordly wealth. Never impossible, just harder or more difficult at least in some cases in comparison with someone who has only just enough in the first place.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now