What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Money and wealth are temporary (1 Viewer)

IC FBGCav

Footballguy
And I wrong?   When I look at the world in the future, they seem like aracadic ideas.

But then again I might be an idiot that underestimates greed.

 
A life where I can't buy the next Jack Reacher novel new, go to the next Marvel movie, eat what I want where I want, afford a Baker Mayfield rookie card, can't have what I want when I want it?  That would totally suck.

I do remember a time like that however, but that was as a kid, hell, there was a time we had our electricity turned off because we couldn't pay the bill.  Then it hit me why mom was stacking up on candles.

I do think having seen both worlds beats never knowing both.  You get perspective.

I will never need for nothing here on out, So in my case lack of $$$$$$ was temporary.

Having $$$$$$$ beats the hell out of not having $$$$$$$$.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I wrong?   When I look at the world in the future, they seem like aracadic ideas.

But then again I might be an idiot that underestimates greed.
The people that control the money and wealth and any given time might be temporary, but the money and wealth themselves are not.  Neither are the industries and instruments that generate the wealth.  Where wealth and power are nearly interchangeable concepts, those few families, corporations or other groups that hold it now are going to continue to work to hold it for future generations.

*This response is based on the assumption that "aracadic" is supposed to be "archaic."  If it is supposed to refer to spiders or something else, then I withdraw it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The people that control the money and wealth and any given time might be temporary, but the money and wealth themselves are not.  Neither are the industries and instruments that generate the wealth.  Where wealth and power are nearly interchangeable concepts, those few families, corporations or other groups that hold it now are going to continue to work to hold it for future generations.

*This response is based on the assumption that "aracadic" is supposed to be "archaic."  If it is supposed to refer to spiders or something else, then I withdraw it.
Capitalism at its finest.  Well done.  

 
"They say money can't buy happiness. Have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski?" - Kenny F'in Powers

 
Also something is that corporations while recognized by the USA as persons, are immortal giving them a pretty strong advantage over us normal peasants.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Profound.

No opioid offers rewards to compete with the feeling when life confirms any portion of one's feelings or efforts.  On this occasion, life becomes profound. Parenthood is the only phenomena which completes that way (but is sososo much more humbling, in accordance with the necessities of the life process). Difference is, when wealth comes with this confirmation, assistants/employees/flunkies/toadies/fans do as well. From that point, anytime the person in question expresses themselves, they have someone willing, able, even contracted to give it the Seal of Profundity. That's why artistic arcs are usually short and corporations where power becomes determined by the # of rubberstamps in one's purview stop performing efficiently without rigging their game.

LeBron James came to see his abilities with a basketball as profound about the time ESPN started showing his HS games. For almost 20 yrs now, he has surrounded himself with folks who agree with him. First cronies, then press, then coaches, then owners, then media, then sport. Now he is profound, ruinously profound. He has perverted sportsmanship so that he may be worshipped on a level commensurate with his self-image. So has the President of the United States. So has Oprah. So would you, if you had the chance and so do you by envying anyone to the point that it gives them power.

David Foster Wallace: ...In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough...Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you....Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.

 
David Foster Wallace: ...In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough...Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you....Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.
This is a pretty great half-post. 

 
Also something is that corporations while recognized by the USA as persons, are immortal giving them a pretty strong advantage over us normal peasants.
When the founding happened, they were temporary. They were private investors who banded together, invested their capital, and performed and/or built a public service. That we no longer do that is criminal. 

What is not criminal is to conceive of an inefficient barter economy so that there wasn't so much dynamism in exchange. There may always be money now, but there were barter economies. 

Anyway, I don't mind money, but money can be manipulated by those in power. 

What you'll probably never get rid of is wealth -- even in barter economies, wealth will just be the sum of your assets and what they can fetch you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“They say money doesn’t buy happiness but that’s just wrong. Have you ever seen anybody unhappy on a wave runner?” 

- Daniel Tosh

 
When the founding happened, they were temporary. They were private investors who banded together, invested their capital, and performed and/or built a public service. That we no longer do that is criminal. 

What is not criminal is to conceive of an inefficient barter economy so that there wasn't so much dynamism in exchange. There may always be money now, but there were barter economies. 

Anyway, I don't mind money, but money can be manipulated by those in power. 

What you'll probably never get rid of is wealth -- even in barter economies, wealth will just be the sum of your assets and what they can fetch you. 
You think we can get back to that on a large scale? I know the most successful communes have done this, but they all fizzle out after people insist on working weird sex stuff into it (see Oneida). Because as a dirty lefty commie that sounds great to me. I'd even regain some of my old trust in capitalism if this happened.

I wish I could recall where I read it, but I think our Constitution referenced the Jamestown Charter, which was a corporate document giving rights to individuals. If the basis of our government references a corporate charter, then maybe there is no fix, and this is the best we can squeeze out of this government model? I really do not know the answers to these questions, but it seems you might.

 
You think we can get back to that on a large scale? I know the most successful communes have done this, but they all fizzle out after people insist on working weird sex stuff into it (see Oneida). Because as a dirty lefty commie that sounds great to me. I'd even regain some of my old trust in capitalism if this happened.

I wish I could recall where I read it, but I think our Constitution referenced the Jamestown Charter, which was a corporate document giving rights to individuals. If the basis of our government references a corporate charter, then maybe there is no fix, and this is the best we can squeeze out of this government model? I really do not know the answers to these questions, but it seems you might.
Yeah, my post was definitely reactionary utopianism. We're simply too far gone to ever come back. Really, and pragmatically, what I'm getting at is reasonability in the terms of economic scale. There's no reason for corporations to be indefinite entities nor is there a reason for them to be into every little thing.

This is going to sound stupid, but do you remember the film "Good Guys?" It's a harmless comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell, right? Well, no. It was written by a very perceptive guy named Adam McKay (Vice) who creates a villainous corporation. "__, we're into everything." There's no reason to shield people from personal liability when they provide a hundred different goods and services. It indeed gives the justification for being "too big to fail," and when they do, under the aforementioned rationale, the taxpayers foot the bill.

An aside: In fact, footing that bill while shielding the corporate officers and shareholders from personal liability was something both the Tea Party and Occupy (oh, remember when?) agreed upon. They should have worked together in opposing bonuses, etc. The public got absolutely fleeced because these corporations provided so many goods and services that we couldn't exist without them. We need to at least re-think the old requirements of stating what it is a corporation actually does on its corporate charter. Because right now, it's far too easy -- in my opinion -- to list in the broadest terms what it is you actually do and get your charter approved (always in Delaware, of course).

As far as providing only public services, we could use the standard of public use used under Kelo v. New London for defining what public use means. In that case, the S. Ct. held that public use meant literally that which serves a public purpose. It's incredibly broad. That was the famous eminent domain takings case. That definitional rule has the danger of swallowing itself, but we're never going to just use corporations to build roads and other projects we thin of as strictly public. It just can't happen. That's more a historical nod than anything. In fact, asking corporations to perform goods and services for public purposes allows for privatization of typically state-run projects, so I'm not sure that should even appeal to you, Dedfin.

That said, the public welfare should be taken into consideration when thinking about corporations and whether we allow corporate behavior to exist. Because right now, the way things are structured, they're not contributing to society by providing goods and services, they're harming it by being too big, into everything, while its officers and shareholders are shielded from personal liability. There has to be some sort of statutory or judicial test by which we determine who and where and why we'll allow this shield.

Anyway, I'll try and clarify my thoughts and post a little further on the subject, but I'll look into the corporate charter of Jamestown and get back to you. I don't think the Founders looked to a corporate charter to grant individual rights. I think they appealed to what you learned in your basic civics courses. They appealed to the inalienable and universal rights of mankind. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top