Why we give respect to Rich and no-respect to poor?

[sandykho47]

There are lot reason why that happens, but usually because :
Rich : They could help people, they have company that many people can have work on him/her company, people think usually rich people do good things

Poor : They make other people help him/her, people think poor people usually do bad things, people think poor people is reason why country win't grow up

I'm not racist, but i think this why people give respect to Rich and no-respect to poor

[Ibian]

I got a better question. Why are people being self-destructive by envying those who do better than them instead of working on improving their own situation?

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

We are all here to make money, whatever some may claim. We should not be advocating that people take our money from us and give it to others.

[Skavenger]

I got a better question. Why are people being self-destructive by envying those who do better than them instead of working on improving their own situation?

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

We are all here to make money, whatever some may claim. We should not be advocating that people take our money from us and give it to others.

How do you make money? exactly, by taking money from another person.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I got a better question. Why are people being self-destructive by envying those who do better than them instead of working on improving their own situation?

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

We are all here to make money, whatever some may claim. We should not be advocating that people take our money from us and give it to others.

How do you make money? exactly, by taking money from another person.

How do you make money ? by being paid against services that your customer value more than his money.
Taking money imply coercion, a monopoly of government.
Making money is what productive people does.

[Skavenger]

Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.

I have a deal for you, since you are so afraid to be rich for its evil, I propose to purify your soul by taking care of your money for you.
You'll be loved for your sacrifices.

[asimpleuser]

Radom Ramble:

In a Capitalist society, "Rich" normally = abundant wealth, (howsoever derived,) plentiful access to funds, being seen as successful based on the "stuff" you can afford to buy, the house you live in, cars you drive etc, etc...

And, no doubt, because of the way we are conditioned in a Capitalist society, we all mostly see these things as a marker of being "successful" because we have been conditioned to do so - its seen as, and feels, well, natural.

As an older, "successful" person, my own personal opinion is that the definition of "successful" should not be determined by governments, or even society, based on how "they" see you.  You should set your own markers.  Being "Rich" - (ie: having lots of money, or things,) does not make an individual "Rich" imo, although, I guess many people consider this to be the case...

My point is - happiness is everything, fiscal wealth means diddly squat in at the end of the day.  Being content, loved and happy is far more valuable than being "Rich". Trust me, I know. Find your own route to happiness - it may not be money-based, or bitcoin based, however much you think it might be..! 

Set your own "Rich" - and you might find you already have more than you think...!

(In the meantime, Bitcoin is the future, and long may it live and make us all "happy"!)

[RobertDJ]

Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.

This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hard, and building your money and having others work for you.

If everyone that was rich was a scammer then no one would want to do business with them.

[HarHarHar9965]

Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.

This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hard

I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Putting aside the question of where their capital originated from.... the very idea that wealth is "inherited" is at odds with the idea of "working hard." Some people are just born into money, and they are lazy as hell.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Being rich = inheriting, scamming, etc.

This could not be further from the truth. You become rich by working hard

I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Putting aside the question of where their capital originated from.... the very idea that wealth is "inherited" is at odds with the idea of "working hard." Some people are just born into money, and they are lazy as hell.

No man can be smaller that its money. (Atlas shrugged )
If money comes into the hand of the lazy, then it will flee from its hand, no need for government intervention to take it from its hand by force to redistribute.

A fat purse quickly empties if there be no golden stream to refill it. (Richest man in babylon)
The man smaller than his money finish on crack, killed, abused, looted, and find that nothing can buy a purpose, so he will often be prone to depression.
Having too much money when you are not as great to make it is a curse.

So yes, you become wealthy by working hard and, I will add, for yourself. You can inherit the money, but I don't see what to envy to the dumb that can't make it that would justify coercion.

Maybe society should make the difference between rich and wealthy.
You can't inherit wealth, but you can inherit large sum of money.
Being wealthy is the power to attract money without coercion, so by definition a wealthy person becomes rich.

[validium]

Because that is what capitalism does (right or wrongly).  Money = you are worthy, no money = you are not worthy. 

Couldn't agree more.

[JerryCurlzzz]

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.

Interesting, do you mean there is a form of socialism where state doesn't have to exercise coercion, and where everyone is free to disassociate from the system and trade with who he wants for the price he wants and on what he wants ?
I did not think any kind of socialism was possible at the level of the state without coercion, what form of socialism do you mean ?

Union labor is a kind of socialism without coercion (only if they don't depend on government subsidies, and don't blackmail people that does not join them), which is good.
But I can't see how such thing would work at the level of a state. Any good reading ?

[fredthegambler]

hi actually i m not a newbie but newbie in forum

people love rich and give all respect to them if rich wants they give them ther A** without any reason but the reason behind will be money..

the community only love rick why not poor ,,, poor deserve`s more respect ... poor have much more peace in them expect rich ...

if rich wants help everyone help them if poor wants no one help expect few people


please give me some predictions

Well, thats the world think nowadays. Maybe they are thinking that poor people tends to do harmful stuff for a little money. They just avoid them or what. Have you watched a clip about this? They dressed a homeless man and groomed him like a rich guy. Placed the man in front of a coffee shop and asked for money from the people. He was given a lot. And then the crew dressed him in his homeless man clothes and put him again on the same spot, people avoided him. Check that out in youtube.

[Arriemoller]

There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.

As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.

[hua_hui]

Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.

[Nicolas Dorier]

There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.

As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.

If he can't spend the money he owns, because locked away from his stupidity, then I don't understand why you classify him as rich.
Either you can spend and you are rich, or you can't and it means the money does not belong to you.

Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.

He will loose it as quickly as he earned it if his brains don't follow.

[JerryCurlzzz]

Socialism is institutionalized greed, backed up by violent men with guns.

As someone mentioned earlier, that may be an appropriate characterization (if imprecise) of state socialism. But not all forms of socialism would use the state to enforce anything, and in fact, some oppose it on all fronts.

Interesting, do you mean there is a form of socialism where state doesn't have to exercise coercion, and where everyone is free to disassociate from the system and trade with who he wants for the price he wants and on what he wants ?
I did not think any kind of socialism was possible at the level of the state without coercion, what form of socialism do you mean ?

Union labor is a kind of socialism without coercion (only if they don't depend on government subsidies, and don't blackmail people that does not join them), which is good.
But I can't see how such thing would work at the level of a state. Any good reading ?

Yes, there are such forms of socialism. The distinction is between State Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) and Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). Trade unionism/anarcho-syndicalism generally fall under the latter categorization.

[Arriemoller]

There is a strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, and IQ is to a strong degree inherited.
This might explain why poverty as well as wealth seems to run in the family.

As a smart man once said, "there are no rich fools".
And that's why many of the wealthy families make sure the wealth is locked in trust funds governed by a collective of relatives, perhaps with one or two outsiders as a kind of "moderator". That way a stupid grandson or somebody else down the line that might not be as smart as the ancestor who made the fortune, can't lose the fortune due to hos stupidity.

If he can't spend the money he owns, because locked away from his stupidity, then I don't understand why you classify him as rich.
Either you can spend and you are rich, or you can't and it means the money does not belong to you.

Some people instantly earn a large amout of money by luck. They overlook poor from then. Even they are rich, but not wealthy in mentalIty. No one will be happy to help them.

He will loose it as quickly as he earned it if his brains don't follow.

Maybe "locked" is the wrong word, they do get to use the money, they just don't get to do it as they please.

[zimmah]

Because they think they deserve it. "Oh, he deserves to be poor, its their fault". This along with the hope of poor people to get rich, constitute the fundamental pillar to keep the capitalism scam going.

exactly,

even though most people are worse of n capitalism (by design), many of them support it, in the hopes of ever becoming the top of the food chain (no matter how unlikely), and the ones that do not support it because they are so far down the chain they can't ever hope to be even somewhere near the middle, they are too poor to matter anyway.

Also, a lot of propaganda against anything that undermines capitalism.