there will be poor always, pathetically suffering

[saxitoxin]

For Cosmo Barros, a 37-year-old bartender who works in the down-at-heel neighbourhood of Brás in central São Paulo, finding ways to save money for his family of six, which survives on R$2,000 ($1,038) a month, is vital.

“We can’t be more than five minutes in the shower. To save water and electricity, I have to turn the shower on, get wet, then turn it off, soap myself, then turn it on again,” he says.

Despite this seemingly frugal attitude Mr Barros still likes to splash out. He once spent R$300 on Carolina Herrera 212 eau de cologne and aftershave balm, for example, after managing to persuade the shop owner, who is a friend, to give him a discount.

According to on-the-ground interviews in São Paulo and an online survey with 1,000 consumers nationwide, carried out by the Financial Times’ Brazil research service Brazil Confidential, spending this kind of proportion of monthly wages on beauty and personal care products is the norm among lower-income consumers, who value both brand image and quality.

ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4402bc0c-95eb-11e1-9d9d-00144feab49a.html

Is poverty a law of nature?

[Army of GOD]

from an uneducated point of view (>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated), I would have to say yes.

[saxitoxin]

>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated

I stopped counting when I got to triple negative.

[Haggis_McMutton]

relative or absolute poverty?

i.e. even though I'm significantly poorer in monetary terms than some really rich fucks who lived 100-200 years ago, I have access to things they couldn't even imagine.

I'd say it's a reasonable bet that unless humans completely change their instincts and mindset somehow, there will always be relative poverty. The goal is to raise the level such that even the poorest don't have to worry about shit like food and shelter.

[Army of GOD]

It's like when you have a group of cheetahs. The cheetahs that are the fastest and strongest and smartest will get the most meat while the slow and fat and stupid cheetahs will either scrap by by eating the shitty meat or just starving to death.

That doesn't mean that society could possibly do something to fix poverty, however.

LOCK THIS FUCKING THREAD

[saxitoxin]

fat and stupid cheetahs

fat cheetahs can be fucking fast, bro

[saxitoxin]

FINLAND vs. GREECE

-both were war-ravaged around the same time and at relatively the same severity
-both are about the same size
-both don't have any spectacular natural resources
-both have liberal sea access
-both have a threatening, larger neighbor
-both are fairly new as independent states (in the modern era)

Set aside all the complex equations, obscure reasons, nuanced statistical analyses for a moment ... in one sentence, why is one rich and why is one poor?

What about industrious, hard-working, northern Italy and lazy, wine-drinking, 15-kid family southern Italy?

[Fruitcake]

>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated

I stopped counting when I got to triple negative.

I did much the same.

Back on topic...well what you ask is actually quite an interesting question.

The utopian dream is to lift the standards of living globally to a stage where there are no poor any more. However, I would argue that when...and if...this ever happened, there would still be poor people. The only difference would be the level at which 'poor' was considered 'poor'. It could be said that if one looks back at the early stages of the human being they were all pretty bloody poor. In fact even so called wealthy only a few hundred years ago were poor by today's standards...which of course could be argued as nonsense as relatively they were extraordinarily rich in relation to the society of the time.

So, in summary, yes there will always be poor. And anyway, if there were no poor who the hell would one have to dust, clean, polish one's brogues, drive one to/from locations and generally be there to wait on those of society who prefer to employ otherwise useless individuals to carry out mundane and simple tasks that don't require too much brain power (that they are lacking any way.)

Interestingly I was with a friend the other day who is quite a famous nuclear scientist. he was saying (he is old, so one can forgive him..well i do). that they considered scouring lower orders primary schools to look for the bright sparks. They would then take them away from the parents (who suffer from grazed knuckles anyway so unlikely to notice their child's absence) and educate them thoroughly in a controlled environment. I asked 'what about the wastage rate' as children can often shine early on only for their light to diminish as their hard wired genetics kicks in and they become as stupid as their parents. He responded....'simple, we throw them back' ...'ahh' I answered ' a bit like fishing..throw the disappointing catches back so they can be eaten by other fish'...'yep, pretty much' he replied.

So why do I bring this into the discussion. Simple, there are those who win and those who lose, that's the way of things. If you are a winner reading this, then reach over your shoulder, pat yourself on the back and feel smug. If you are a loser, the chances are you can reach down to your lower back and give your arse a scratch while you try to figure out what the hell this is all about. There will always be poor and often those who are poor can often be identified by their stupidity...and long arms with grazed knuckles.

[Phatscotty]

Great post, as always Fruit-C.

I just want to say I have always understood poor people to be poor decision makers. There is a little room for bad luck, and a little more for external forces. Overall, it comes down to, you are as rich as your ability to make a good decision, you are as poor as your repeating of bad decisions.

For example, look at people who smoke cigarettes or have a drug problem. Over time and on average, they are going to end up worse off than someone who values their money and saves it and spend it wisely, over time and on average.

[saxitoxin]

>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated

I stopped counting when I got to triple negative.

I did much the same.

Back on topic...well what you ask is actually quite an interesting question.

The utopian dream is to lift the standards of living globally to a stage where there are no poor any more. However, I would argue that when...and if...this ever happened, there would still be poor people. The only difference would be the level at which 'poor' was considered 'poor'. It could be said that if one looks back at the early stages of the human being they were all pretty bloody poor.

Based on this and what Haggis just said, the suggestion that is made is that the only possibility is to mitigate the level of suffering of the poor by social and technological progress.

However, the poor can't realistically manage the cultural and technological progress of society (if they could, they wouldn't be poor - according to this thesis).

By allowing the poor to be involved in the management of society, you are extending their suffering. Is democracy a compassionate or a brutal system of government?

[Fruitcake]

>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated

I stopped counting when I got to triple negative.

I did much the same.

Back on topic...well what you ask is actually quite an interesting question.

The utopian dream is to lift the standards of living globally to a stage where there are no poor any more. However, I would argue that when...and if...this ever happened, there would still be poor people. The only difference would be the level at which 'poor' was considered 'poor'. It could be said that if one looks back at the early stages of the human being they were all pretty bloody poor.

Based on this and what Haggis just said, the suggestion that is made is that the only possibility is to mitigate the level of suffering of the poor by social and technological progress.

However, the poor can't realistically manage the cultural and technological progress of society (if they could, they wouldn't be poor - according to this thesis).

By allowing the poor to be involved in the management of society, you are extending their suffering. Is democracy a compassionate or a brutal system of government?

Point 1 - YES
Point 2 - Of course not, that's why the rest of us make those decisions for them and decide what's best for them.
Point 3a - Are you kidding? Steady on old chap, let's not start talking about the poor being involved in any meaningful decision making process....they have tried that and are proven failures at the task so let's not extend their suffering (as you put it)
Point 3b) both compassionate and brutal.

[saxitoxin]

>implying my point of view is ever not uneducated

I stopped counting when I got to triple negative.

I did much the same.

Back on topic...well what you ask is actually quite an interesting question.

The utopian dream is to lift the standards of living globally to a stage where there are no poor any more. However, I would argue that when...and if...this ever happened, there would still be poor people. The only difference would be the level at which 'poor' was considered 'poor'. It could be said that if one looks back at the early stages of the human being they were all pretty bloody poor.

Based on this and what Haggis just said, the suggestion that is made is that the only possibility is to mitigate the level of suffering of the poor by social and technological progress.

However, the poor can't realistically manage the cultural and technological progress of society (if they could, they wouldn't be poor - according to this thesis).

By allowing the poor to be involved in the management of society, you are extending their suffering. Is democracy a compassionate or a brutal system of government?

Point 1 - YES
Point 2 - Of course not, that's why the rest of us make those decisions for them and decide what's best for them.
Point 3a - Are you kidding? Steady on old chap, let's not start talking about the poor being involved in any meaningful decision making process....they have tried that and are proven failures at the task so let's not extend their suffering (as you put it)
Point 3b) both compassionate and brutal.

What if the poor demand to be involved in the decision-making process? Can they be dissuaded through reason or is dissuasion best left in the hands of the police and army?

[Fruitcake]

Back on topic...well what you ask is actually quite an interesting question.

The utopian dream is to lift the standards of living globally to a stage where there are no poor any more. However, I would argue that when...and if...this ever happened, there would still be poor people. The only difference would be the level at which 'poor' was considered 'poor'. It could be said that if one looks back at the early stages of the human being they were all pretty bloody poor.

Based on this and what Haggis just said, the suggestion that is made is that the only possibility is to mitigate the level of suffering of the poor by social and technological progress.

However, the poor can't realistically manage the cultural and technological progress of society (if they could, they wouldn't be poor - according to this thesis).

By allowing the poor to be involved in the management of society, you are extending their suffering. Is democracy a compassionate or a brutal system of government?

Point 1 - YES
Point 2 - Of course not, that's why the rest of us make those decisions for them and decide what's best for them.
Point 3a - Are you kidding? Steady on old chap, let's not start talking about the poor being involved in any meaningful decision making process....they have tried that and are proven failures at the task so let's not extend their suffering (as you put it)
Point 3b) both compassionate and brutal.

What if the poor demand to be involved in the decision-making process? Can they be dissuaded through reason or is dissuasion best left in the hands of the police and army?

The poor are incapable of demanding anything, because they are poor. Come on Saxi, do wake up there at the back of the class and stop reading those damnable philosophical books I see you stick your nose in for hours on end.

[thegreekdog]

If this back and forth between FC and Saxi continues... Thread of the Year 2012.

[BigBallinStalin]

What if the poor demand to be involved in the decision-making process? Can they be dissuaded through reason or is dissuasion best left in the hands of the police and army?

But the poor are involved in the decision-making process of the market, and even for the "market" of voting. Whenever someone voluntarily pays for something, that right there is a decision which influences the decisions of others. Of course, involuntary exchanges perform the same function but don't reveal the same preferences, and etc.


Regarding that poor guy in Brazil, people are free to try to dissuade him and tell him what's best for his family, but when it comes to the enforcement of one's decrees at the barrel of a gun (i.e. government-mandated programs), then I'll disagree with those means.

[saxitoxin]

But the poor are involved in the decision-making process of the market, and even for the "market" of voting. Whenever someone voluntarily pays for something, that right there is a decision which influences the decisions of others.

Well, they're involved in the decision-making process inasmuch as a caged monkey is involved in the monkey food business. If the monkey doesn't eat Brand A monkey food, the zookeeper may switch to Brand B. But the monkey is never going to be asked to formulate a new type of monkey food from the ground up.

A poor person may buy an iPod or he may buy a Zuun, and his decision will influence which product succeeds and achieves greater market penetration, but a poor person isn't going to be involved in the invention of MP3 players. In the case of MP3 players, a natural demand didn't exist in the marketplace, the demand - like the product - was manufactured by forces upon which the poor have no influence.

[AndyDufresne]

But the poor are involved in the decision-making process of the market, and even for the "market" of voting. Whenever someone voluntarily pays for something, that right there is a decision which influences the decisions of others.

Well, they're involved in the decision-making process inasmuch as a caged monkey is involved in the monkey food business. If the monkey doesn't eat Brand A monkey food, the zookeeper may switch to Brand B. But the monkey is never going to be asked to formulate a new type of monkey food from the ground up.

Arguments involving primates are always superior in strength than any possible counter-argument...except for one also containing primates, at which point, stalemates and an equilibrium of primatology may occur.

This monkey knows. --->


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

But the poor are involved in the decision-making process of the market, and even for the "market" of voting. Whenever someone voluntarily pays for something, that right there is a decision which influences the decisions of others.

Well, they're involved in the decision-making process inasmuch as a caged monkey is involved in the monkey food business. If the monkey doesn't eat Brand A monkey food, the zookeeper may switch to Brand B. But the monkey is never going to be asked to formulate a new type of monkey food from the ground up.

A poor person may buy an iPod or he may buy a Zuun, and his decision will influence which product succeeds and achieves greater market penetration, but a poor person isn't going to be involved in the invention of MP3 players. In the case of MP3 players, a natural demand didn't exist in the marketplace, the demand - like the product - was manufactured by forces upon which the poor have no influence.

It is true that some unknown amount of the poor most likely have a minimal influence on the total variety of luxury goods and their substitutes, but it really depends. For luxury perfume, you might be correct, but if they don't like $200 Brand A, then there's plenty others to choose from.

Your analogy is an inaccurate because there's plenty of luxury goods like perfume or even inferior goods and substitutes for Mr. "I'm A Poor Guy with 20 Kids" to choose from. It's impossible for a "zookeeper," or producer, to force the customers in place (in a cage) if the environment is competitive. For many goods, this holds true. You don't like Brand A? Then switch to something else or find a substitute. There's no cages involved.

Of course, your zookeeper analogy holds true if the zookeeper obtains a government-granted privilege (e.g. a monopoly).


RE: 2nd paragraph, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of influence which a poor person exerts upon the development of products. Sometimes, the developers design goods for certain target markets, which don't contain the poor, yet surprisingly that market is responsive to the good. Sometimes, the target market actually contains the poor, so (if they're smart) marketing research is conducted in order to discover consumer prefers, etc. That requires feedback from the poor, so in that case, there is obviously influence from the poor.

It just depends on the good...


IN other words: "In the case of MP3 players, a natural demand didn't exist in the marketplace, the demand - like the product - was manufactured by forces upon which the poor have no influence."

Demand is discovered, not manufactured. In a free market*, if you want to produce something, you have to find out what the consumers prefer and can afford. In a sense, there is a "natural demand" floating out there, but that "natural demand" is a perceived profitable opportunity. The entrepreneur seeks to discover these opportunities, and the plans follow. To say that "the demand is manufactured" erroneously simplifies a very complex process.

*involuntary exchanges aren't markets, to be clear. E.g., an exception to the above would be government-provided goods through taxation or market-provided goods but by state-mandated privileges like monopolies.



Wow, long-winded, but whatevs.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Great post, as always Fruit-C.

I just want to say I have always understood poor people to be poor decision makers. There is a little room for bad luck, and a little more for external forces. Overall, it comes down to, you are as rich as your ability to make a good decision, you are as poor as your repeating of bad decisions.

For example, look at people who smoke cigarettes or have a drug problem. Over time and on average, they are going to end up worse off than someone who values their money and saves it and spend it wisely, over time and on average.

And I've generally found that children of middle- to upper- class people have never had to decide anything for themselves, have never had to work for anything, and mostly have things handed to them by their parents, and then the cycle repeats. It's nice that they can get an easy kick start, an initial impetus.

Some of us start at the bottom and really hate it when you fucktards assume we're shiftless or stupid when we actually work much harder and are much more intelligent.

-TG

[thegreekdog]

Caveat - anecdotal evidence from here...

I've found, in my profession, that young staff that come from a rich family and who generally did not have to work part time or full time jobs until they joined the workforce after college or law school are among the laziest, self-entitled people I've ever had the displeasure of working with. Every single "rich kid" who fits that description who worked with me did a shitty job, worked less hours than everyone else, and always complained. Every one.

[Fruitcake]

Great post, as always Fruit-C.

I just want to say I have always understood poor people to be poor decision makers. There is a little room for bad luck, and a little more for external forces. Overall, it comes down to, you are as rich as your ability to make a good decision, you are as poor as your repeating of bad decisions.

For example, look at people who smoke cigarettes or have a drug problem. Over time and on average, they are going to end up worse off than someone who values their money and saves it and spend it wisely, over time and on average.

And I've generally found that children of middle- to upper- class people have never had to decide anything for themselves, have never had to work for anything, and mostly have things handed to them by their parents, and then the cycle repeats. It's nice that they can get an easy kick start, an initial impetus.

Some of us start at the bottom and really hate it when you fucktards assume we're shiftless or stupid when we actually work much harder and are much more intelligent.

-TG

Caveat - anecdotal evidence from here...

I've found, in my profession, that young staff that come from a rich family and who generally did not have to work part time or full time jobs until they joined the workforce after college or law school are among the laziest, self-entitled people I've ever had the displeasure of working with. Every single "rich kid" who fits that description who worked with me did a shitty job, worked less hours than everyone else, and always complained. Every one.

Interesting points of view. I fully concur there are many self satisfied smug twats who come from wealthy backgrounds who are lazy, indolent and generally worthless in terms of contribution. However, I think you are missing a vital point...Nature.

Nature has a sweet way of organising things. It should come as no surprise that the expression 'clogs to clogs in three generations' is widely used. I have come across many 2nd generation inherited wealthy who are rapidly descending back to the morass of unwashed from which their Grandfathers originally hailed, (for it is generally the Grandfather rather than Grandmother who first created the fortune but this may change in the future). The reason this happening...simple. they fit the descriptions you so ably portray in the previous posts.

However, there is another class of wealthy inheritors who you may not have come across to often, because you will not even be aware that they are as wealthy as they actually are. Hard working, industrious and with both eyes on future generations. I have many friends of this ilk and I can safely say they work longer hours, work smarter and think quicker than your average bear. They also have an interesting philosophy on their very existence, and that is that they are nothing more than caretakers of the mountain of wealth they possess and their purpose is to ensure it is kept safe for future generations...and added to. They are often those who make decisions globally affecting many others, quietly and without fanfare. I have clients who's forebears amassed fortunes as far back as the 1300s and they still work at increasing it!

Bringing this back round to the natural order of things, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that these families are almost hard wired into keeping their fortunes through their industriousness, whilst there are those who, as I previously mentioned, quietly sink back to whence they sprung. This is the force of nature at work.

So don't feel angry TAILGUNNR, relax...those you refer to are most probably starting on the road downwards (or maybe even a generation into it) and will ultimately fail, whilst you may well be on that greasy pole climbing for all you are worth and salutes to you if you are. For the record, whilst there are many fucktards (as you so quaintly put it) who see the world through a peculiar prism, don't allow yourself to be angered by them, channel that obvious depth of feeling into winning whatever race it is that you are in!

[thegreekdog]

However, there is another class of wealthy inheritors who you may not have come across to often, because you will not even be aware that they are as wealthy as they actually are. Hard working, industrious and with both eyes on future generations. I have many friends of this ilk and I can safely say they work longer hours, work smarter and think quicker than your average bear. They also have an interesting philosophy on their very existence, and that is that they are nothing more than caretakers of the mountain of wealth they possess and their purpose is to ensure it is kept safe for future generations...and added to. They are often those who make decisions globally affecting many others, quietly and without fanfare. I have clients who's forebears amassed fortunes as far back as the 1300s and they still work at increasing it!

I have worked with a few people who come from wealthy families who worked hard. They tended to also work part-time jobs and had to pay for things themselves when they were going through high school and college. The sense of entitlement that conservatives in the US place upon the "poor" applies in the context of entitled rich kiddies as well (at least based upon my own personal experiences). And trust me when I tell you that a lazy, whiny, self-entitled, 25 year old attorney is way worse to deal with than a person on welfare.

[Fruitcake]

However, there is another class of wealthy inheritors who you may not have come across to often, because you will not even be aware that they are as wealthy as they actually are. Hard working, industrious and with both eyes on future generations. I have many friends of this ilk and I can safely say they work longer hours, work smarter and think quicker than your average bear. They also have an interesting philosophy on their very existence, and that is that they are nothing more than caretakers of the mountain of wealth they possess and their purpose is to ensure it is kept safe for future generations...and added to. They are often those who make decisions globally affecting many others, quietly and without fanfare. I have clients who's forebears amassed fortunes as far back as the 1300s and they still work at increasing it!

I have worked with a few people who come from wealthy families who worked hard. They tended to also work part-time jobs and had to pay for things themselves when they were going through high school and college. The sense of entitlement that conservatives in the US place upon the "poor" applies in the context of entitled rich kiddies as well (at least based upon my own personal experiences). And trust me when I tell you that a lazy, whiny, self-entitled, 25 year old attorney is way worse to deal with than a person on welfare.

Oh I trust you completely on this point. However, I would say in response that those are the very people who prove the law of nature. They got the shite end of the genes in their lineage and so will start the process of a downward trend.

I have relations from 3rd generation removed branches of the family who, bless them, talk about the grand houses their Grandfathers (my Grandfathers brothers) had while they are now living back in the village from whence we originated in the south of England and on welfare to boot. Of course, we naturally send them small allowances each month so their children can have new shoes (seriously) while they sit there on takeaway food, cigarettes and bingo bemoaning the fact that their rich relations have so very much. So you see, my philosophy comes from the subjective experience of having seen all this up close and personal. I recall my father visiting a female cousin decades ago while her indolent slobbish (and flatulent as I recall) husband berated my father for having so much and that he must be 'up to summink' as he put it. When we left I asked my Father why he was such a shitebag to which my Father replied..."he is a loser Son, and you'll meet many of them in your life"

[saxitoxin]

But the poor are involved in the decision-making process of the market, and even for the "market" of voting. Whenever someone voluntarily pays for something, that right there is a decision which influences the decisions of others.

Well, they're involved in the decision-making process inasmuch as a caged monkey is involved in the monkey food business. If the monkey doesn't eat Brand A monkey food, the zookeeper may switch to Brand B. But the monkey is never going to be asked to formulate a new type of monkey food from the ground up.

A poor person may buy an iPod or he may buy a Zuun, and his decision will influence which product succeeds and achieves greater market penetration, but a poor person isn't going to be involved in the invention of MP3 players. In the case of MP3 players, a natural demand didn't exist in the marketplace, the demand - like the product - was manufactured by forces upon which the poor have no influence.

It is true that some unknown amount of the poor most likely have a minimal influence on the total variety of luxury goods and their substitutes, but it really depends. For luxury perfume, you might be correct, but if they don't like $200 Brand A, then there's plenty others to choose from.

Your analogy is an inaccurate because there's plenty of luxury goods like perfume or even inferior goods and substitutes for Mr. "I'm A Poor Guy with 20 Kids" to choose from. It's impossible for a "zookeeper," or producer, to force the customers in place (in a cage) if the environment is competitive. For many goods, this holds true. You don't like Brand A? Then switch to something else or find a substitute. There's no cages involved.

Of course, your zookeeper analogy holds true if the zookeeper obtains a government-granted privilege (e.g. a monopoly).


RE: 2nd paragraph, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of influence which a poor person exerts upon the development of products. Sometimes, the developers design goods for certain target markets, which don't contain the poor, yet surprisingly that market is responsive to the good. Sometimes, the target market actually contains the poor, so (if they're smart) marketing research is conducted in order to discover consumer prefers, etc. That requires feedback from the poor, so in that case, there is obviously influence from the poor.

It just depends on the good...


IN other words: "In the case of MP3 players, a natural demand didn't exist in the marketplace, the demand - like the product - was manufactured by forces upon which the poor have no influence."

Demand is discovered, not manufactured. In a free market*, if you want to produce something, you have to find out what the consumers prefer and can afford. In a sense, there is a "natural demand" floating out there, but that "natural demand" is a perceived profitable opportunity. The entrepreneur seeks to discover these opportunities, and the plans follow. To say that "the demand is manufactured" erroneously simplifies a very complex process.

*involuntary exchanges aren't markets, to be clear. E.g., an exception to the above would be government-provided goods through taxation or market-provided goods but by state-mandated privileges like monopolies.



Wow, long-winded, but whatevs.

I reject the idea that demand can be discovered.

That is all.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Great post, as always Fruit-C.

I just want to say I have always understood poor people to be poor decision makers. There is a little room for bad luck, and a little more for external forces. Overall, it comes down to, you are as rich as your ability to make a good decision, you are as poor as your repeating of bad decisions.

For example, look at people who smoke cigarettes or have a drug problem. Over time and on average, they are going to end up worse off than someone who values their money and saves it and spend it wisely, over time and on average.

And I've generally found that children of middle- to upper- class people have never had to decide anything for themselves, have never had to work for anything, and mostly have things handed to them by their parents, and then the cycle repeats. It's nice that they can get an easy kick start, an initial impetus.

Some of us start at the bottom and really hate it when you fucktards assume we're shiftless or stupid when we actually work much harder and are much more intelligent.

-TG

Caveat - anecdotal evidence from here...

I've found, in my profession, that young staff that come from a rich family and who generally did not have to work part time or full time jobs until they joined the workforce after college or law school are among the laziest, self-entitled people I've ever had the displeasure of working with. Every single "rich kid" who fits that description who worked with me did a shitty job, worked less hours than everyone else, and always complained. Every one.

Interesting points of view. I fully concur there are many self satisfied smug twats who come from wealthy backgrounds who are lazy, indolent and generally worthless in terms of contribution. However, I think you are missing a vital point...Nature.

Nature has a sweet way of organising things. It should come as no surprise that the expression 'clogs to clogs in three generations' is widely used. I have come across many 2nd generation inherited wealthy who are rapidly descending back to the morass of unwashed from which their Grandfathers originally hailed, (for it is generally the Grandfather rather than Grandmother who first created the fortune but this may change in the future). The reason this happening...simple. they fit the descriptions you so ably portray in the previous posts.

However, there is another class of wealthy inheritors who you may not have come across to often, because you will not even be aware that they are as wealthy as they actually are. Hard working, industrious and with both eyes on future generations. I have many friends of this ilk and I can safely say they work longer hours, work smarter and think quicker than your average bear. They also have an interesting philosophy on their very existence, and that is that they are nothing more than caretakers of the mountain of wealth they possess and their purpose is to ensure it is kept safe for future generations...and added to. They are often those who make decisions globally affecting many others, quietly and without fanfare. I have clients who's forebears amassed fortunes as far back as the 1300s and they still work at increasing it!

Bringing this back round to the natural order of things, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that these families are almost hard wired into keeping their fortunes through their industriousness, whilst there are those who, as I previously mentioned, quietly sink back to whence they sprung. This is the force of nature at work.

So don't feel angry TAILGUNNR, relax...those you refer to are most probably starting on the road downwards (or maybe even a generation into it) and will ultimately fail, whilst you may well be on that greasy pole climbing for all you are worth and salutes to you if you are. For the record, whilst there are many fucktards (as you so quaintly put it) who see the world through a peculiar prism, don't allow yourself to be angered by them, channel that obvious depth of feeling into winning whatever race it is that you are in!

Your concern is touching and your wit refreshing, though perhaps you misunderstood my point. The self-made person is the greatest of all; the ability to build, to construct, is what separates the humans from the animals. Animals merely use their resources in their environment and contribute to its balance; humans change their environment to suit their needs or desires. Therefore, the capacity for change in one's system is a measure of one's humanity. If your Franciso d'Anconia's greatest concern is how to not lose the millions of units of money he inherited from centuries of growth, but rather how to add another three percent, then he is not a self-made person, nor can it be said that he would be wealthy if he'd been born without the monetary advantage.

I do not begrudge those who possess such an advantage; I take offense only at the assumption that my character is less than their own.

-TG