African Americans lag behind. Granted. I already addressed this.
Your conclusion is pure politically correct speculation. In 50 years, black children will still inherit that history. Must they still fall behind?
It depends, are we going to address the problems or continue to deny them? Are we going to change the racist attitudes that perpetuate the situation?
The Chinese in the west share a similar history but it doesn't seem to be effecting them. I call your self-perpetuating politically correct postulation bunk.
You are incredibly wrong. The Chinese workers were generally paid immigrants. It wasn't great pay but it was employment. Irish workers did a lot of railroad work too, but that doesn't remotely compare with a system of kidnapping and generational slavery and years of official apartheid polices..
No one anywhere is rewarded for starting a business! They are rewarded for succeeding at business.
No one gets a decent standard of living because they "deserve" it. They earn their decent standard of living by being successful.[/url]
You make such bizzare statements it's hard to even take you seriously. Banks reward people with loans
before they even start the business, they do this because there is a reasonable chance of success which generates income for multiple parties and benefits the economy as a whole. Everything is connected. The more investment we put into people, the better their chances of success.
The question isn't one Bill Gates or none, it's getting two instead of one.
Saying you are "qualified to attend" but you are not accepted, is a politically correct way of saying "We don't want you! We've found somebody WE WANT MORE than you."
No, there are hundreds of thousands of virtually identical applicants for the top schools. It can come down to things like life experience and volunteer work. You know who has an easier time padding the resume that way? Kids like me who were rich enough not to have to work to help the family during high school. It was a luxury to be able to do volunteer work.
I'm clearly saying, if you dug a whole and didn't successfully pull gold out of the hole, it doesn't matter where the fuck you dug the needless hole. It doesn't matter how smart you were before you made your wrong decision. It doesn't matter how much you believed in yourself or how much self confidence you had. It doesn't even matter how prestigious your upbringing. You dug a needless hole! Tough shit! Exxon doesn't get paid for drilling dry holes either.
Because of luck. It's called prospecting for a reason, nobody knows exactly what they are going to find. You can do the exact same work as someone else with the same planning and still end up with nothing. It'd not a bad decision, it's a bad roll of the dice. Of course, now the other guy knows not to dig where you did. Benefit to the mining community as a whole.
Obviously, the wilderness disagrees with you. But clearly you are saying, the government should have build a gold miner safety net before it allowed anyone into California to search for gold.
Obviously, civilization with you. It's all about supporting a population rather than individuals or small tribes. What I am saying is what government has been saying for quite a while, we need enforcement of safety standards and we should use tax money to support it. It's not really a controversial concept outside of libertarian leaning circles.
Again, how smart and capable you are results in ZERO VALUE TO ANYONE if you don't succeed. Thinking you are awesome does not make you awesome Stuart.
You do understand the concept of potential value right? My example of starving children speaks to their potential value which you have squandered by letting them die just like deciding to not invest in a company with good potential.
Again, you are an idiot for not acknowledging that others have been or are in those positions and they suck by comparison. And if it turns out they don't suck, you blame them for their own success because they were obviously lucky.
If you are going to choose to not adress my arguments and set up strawmen instead I think you should stop replying and go start your own thread to address imaginary debate partners. I don't blame anyone for success, they earned it. I just think everyone else deserves to be paid for what they earn as well.
What is the point of this? The bad luck of the guy who made glue that failed to stick and didn't know what to do with it?
Or the brilliant genius of the person who saw a market for glue that didn't stick very well? Neither seem "lucky" in any sense of the word.
Precisely the point, the rewards do not go to the most deserving. These are the men who should have reaped most of the rewards for the success of the product since they are most responsible for it. It went disproportionately to others instead. Our sense of who should be paid what is out of synch with the value they generate.
This is so circular and stupid I can hardly respond. Steve Jobs leaves an the company fails. Thousands of competent workers jobs go at risk but none of them can stop the fall. Steve Jobs shows back up tells them to stop working on their crappy shit that was going to fail. Then he gives them a direction that will succeed.
You dismiss all of that as luck? BULLSHIT!
No. Luck is that his cancer developed later. Luck is that he was born in the US. Luck was that he didn't die in a random car accident. Luck was having people like Wozniak around to offer crucial contributions.
What I dismiss is that he was so responsible for the success as to be paid as highly as he did while the factory workers, people just as essential to every company, get worked so hard and paid so little the factory has to put up
"suicide prevention nets". Surely he deserves reward, just not so outsized as he received because of the massive tangle of others who contributed to his success.
I have no fucking idea, but based on everything I've read about him over 30 odd years, I'd say he would probably have taken over Somalia fired the incompetents and made it profitable. Then he would have improved the lives of the Entrean's and be threatening to reform Egypt as well.
Computer geeks and warlords have different skillsets. Regardless, does he get anywhere in life without an early leg up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_JobsPaul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] His adoptive mother was an accountant,[13] who taught him to read before he went to school.[1] Clara Jobs had been a payroll clerk for Varian Associates, one of the first high-tech firms in what became known as Silicon Valley.[14][15] Asked in a 1995 interview what he wanted to pass on to his children, Jobs replied, "Just to try to be as good a father to them as my father was to me. I think about that every day of my life."
He was lucky, compared to what an orphan in Somalia would have faced. Can't deny it.
Good. Buy their stock.
Don't dodge. Debate. Sounds like you are dodging because it would be a bit damaging to your argument to admit there was another qualified CEO right there and Gates wasn't that special.
Again circular non-sense Bill Gates wasn't rewarded because his stuff was better, we all just made him lucky. Even if he was never born we'd be perfectly happy with what we got. But you are telling me that everyone isn't happy with what they got. They deserve better.
No, you have entirely dodged the point again. Gates was able to make software because someone else built computers for him to make software for. Every business is reliant on other businesses. The more businesses available the more economic opportunities for everyone. We all stand on each other's shoulders.
Seriously, you are not even attempting to adress what I said there.
We should give money to everyone indiscriminately because maybe they are "the one" who will change our world.
No, we should be very focused on fulfilling basic needs that can be advantageous for our own economic growth. Food, shelter, education, infrastructure, healthcare. The next Gates needs the next IBM to give him something to work with.
If you would pay closer attention to my arguments and truly focus on them, you would see that I am not saying
anyone is
the one. I am saying there are plenty of intelligent and capable people around the world and we should take advantage of everything all of them have to offer in their various fields of competence.
I am saying clearly that I think people earn what they deserve based on their personal success.
Aside from those post-it dudes! They just get a yearly salary despite being the most responsible for the product. And those factory workers in China? They are paid less than equivalent workers in the US because of lack of personal success? False, this isn't a debate, your assertion is simply provably false.
I understand it can sound wrong to say some should give up their wealth to benefit others, or that it should be taken against their will through taxes, but this is really about self-benefit for everyone. Doing the right thing can be
good for us as individuals:"Like ethics and justice, good and evil have long been subject to opinion, confusion and obfuscation...it must be understood that good can be considered to be a constructive survival action. It is something that, to put it simply, is more beneficial than destructive across the dynamics. True, nothing is completely good, and to build anew often requires a degree of destruction. But if the constructive outweighs the destructive, i.e., if a greater number of dynamics are helped than harmed, then an action can be considered good. Thus, for example, a new cure which saves a hundred lives but kills only one is an acceptable cure."From a material standpoint when we allow the worldwide underclass to share in our privileged lifestyles that offers benefits for the whole world. Even if we have to redistribute from the rich that one destructive action is balanced out by the benefits, which is that there will be more businesses for us to work with and invest in and more people to buy a higher standard of products.
