Page 1 of 3
#2
I've always found this a difficult dilemma. Interviewing students was a pretty obnoxious way of going about promoting your views IMHO.
#3
Fox exposes


I stopped expecting anything there.


GPA =/= higher taxable income anyway. What the **** have they just proved exactly?
#9
Grades and money aren't the same thing..
You're using UG classic, congratulations.
You should be using UG classic.




E-Married to Guitar0Player

http://the llama forum because its gone forever which sucks and I hate it.
#11
Quote by guitarhero_764
Rich people don't earn their money. Dumb argument is dumb.

wut/
#12
Holy shit.....

I just can't believe Fox News takes up a cable channel.....

Yes! Let's distribute GPA from smart students and give it to the slower ones who will then receive their degrees and not be competent enough to actually do their jobs.
#13
Quote by vagelier
wut/
If you think Bill Gates deserves all of his money you clearly need to think harder about it.
#14
Quote by vagelier
wut/



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1


EDIT: Oh, and they already do that. They curve grades... Which are... Know what? This entire argument is stupid. There's no GPA market, there's no GPA trading or GPA for GPA investment. I can't put my GPA into a money market or into a savings account, I can't trade my GPA for anything other than a title that goes along with my degree, which both happen at set and specific amounts according to the type of degree I'm getting. I feel dumber having thought about this argument.
Last edited by L2112Lif at Aug 17, 2011,
#17
Quote by vagelier
Bill gates =/= all rich people
Same principle applies. The level of income inequality does not match up with what people actually deserve.
#19
Quote by guitarhero_764
If you think Bill Gates deserves all of his money you clearly need to think harder about it.

The man changed the view on computers for the better and ran/runs a fortune 500 company better than most...

And he's donated a shit ton of cash to charity. Bad choice on using Gates as an example
#20
Quote by wizards?
The man changed the view on computers for the better and ran/runs a fortune 500 company better than most...

And he's donated a shit ton of cash to charity. Bad choice on using Gates as an example

but...but...he only gives money to charity so he can make more money!!
#21
Quote by guitarhero_764
Same principle applies. The level of income inequality does not match up with what people actually deserve.

Who decides what they deserve?
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#22
Wealth distribution in the US:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

For those that are interested.

Quote by vagelier
Interesting article. Guy raises a solid point.

As you'd expect from a guy whose consistently been among the top 10 richest people in the world for the last few decades...
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#25
There is a finite amount of money, the more that is made the less it's all worth, so there is a set worth to all the money in the world. GPA can be given out freely without losing it's value. By one person being obscenely rich, that is extra money that the lower class won't have, at all. But theoretically, everyone could have a 4.0 GPA if they study hard enough. Not everyone can be rich.
#28
Quote by Jackal58
Who decides what they deserve?
That's not so important. I don't really care about giving people *exactly* what they deserve, just making things more balanced in general. And anyone with half a brain should be able to see that multi-billionaires did not work 10,000-100,000x harder than most people.
Last edited by guitarhero_764 at Aug 17, 2011,
#29
Quote by guitarhero_764
If you think Bill Gates deserves all of his money you clearly need to think harder about it.


Um... Yes, actually. While I'm not a big fan of MS or their policies, you have to give them credit where it's due. He wrote a computer language, made and sold an OS to IBM (while still retaining rights,) and is an incredible business man. I don't see how exactly he didn't earn his money, he worked harder for it than most rich people.

Quote by guitarhero_764
That's not so important. I don't really care about giving people *exactly* what they deserve, just making things more balanced in general. And anyone with half a brain should be able to see that multi-billionaires did not work 10,000-100,000x harder than most people.


Why, though? For what purpose? And how exactly would you plan to do that?
Last edited by SlayingDragons at Aug 17, 2011,
#30
Quote by guitarhero_764
That's not so important. I don't really care about giving people *exactly* what they deserve, just making things more balanced in general. And anyone with half a brain should be able to see that multi-billionaires did not work 10,000-100,000x harder than most people.

It's not necessarily working harder, no. A miner works physically harder than a stockbroker or a mathematician. It's pretty damn hard to establish a reasonable system that decides who "deserves" their money.
#31
Quote by SlayingDragons
Why, though? For what purpose?
To eliminate the obviously destructive class structures that exist?

And how exactly would you plan to do that?
Socialization.

Quote by vagelier
It's not necessarily working harder, no. A miner works physically harder than a stockbroker or a mathematician.
Ok...?

It's pretty damn hard to establish a reasonable system that decides who "deserves" their money.
Sure, but its pretty easy to see that our current system is completely ****ed.
#32
Quote by guitarhero_764


Ok...?

Sure, but its pretty easy to see that our current system is completely ****ed.

Maybe. But I'd rather we came up with a new system before we abolish the current one.
#33
Quote by dann_blood
Wealth distribution in the US:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

For those that are interested.


As you'd expect from a guy whose consistently been among the top 10 richest people in the world for the last few decades...

"Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s"


#34
Quote by duggyrocks
These american news stories that get posted here are always extremely childish. Doesn't seem to be any quality standard at all

We don't hack cell phone voice mail systems to get to the really good shit.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#36
Quote by vagelier
It's not necessarily working harder, no. A miner works physically harder than a stockbroker or a mathematician. It's pretty damn hard to establish a reasonable system that decides who "deserves" their money.


What if money didn't exist? Now there's something to think about...
#38
Quote by guitarhero_764
To eliminate the obviously destructive class structures that exist?

Socialization.

Ok...?

Sure, but its pretty easy to see that our current system is completely ****ed.


Oh no, some people are rich, some aren't. Get over it.
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#39
Quote by beadhangingOne
What if money didn't exist? Now there's something to think about...

What if you didn't exist?
#40
Quote by guitarhero_764
To eliminate the obviously destructive class structures that exist?

Socialization.

Ok...?

Sure, but its pretty easy to see that our current system is completely ****ed.


If you think socialization is somehow going to get rid of classes, you're wrong. Sure, in a perfect world, everything would work fine and dandy. But you're ignoring the fact that we have social classes hardwired into our DNA at this point. (Unless you don't believe in evolution.) Socialism doesn't work because people just aren't capable of giving up millions of years of social evolution for an arguably more reasonable system.


And it's not really ****ed, it just needs a bit or organization as it's been let go a bit. Socialism would be an absolute cluster****.
Page 1 of 3