Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> It *is* the "cream rising" if you define "cream" as "capable of 
>>> creating wealth."
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that's my problem.  I keep defining "cream" as "having a brain and 
>> using it in some productive way" or even as "being a decent person."
> 
> Well, those two are certainly not mutually exclusive. If you look at 
> "wealth" as "the result of being productive", then yes, people are using 
> their brains in a productive way.
> 

I say again, wealth is the result of succeeding at getting wealth. 
Aren't schoolteachers productive?  (The good ones, anyway?)

>> No, just observing.  It's like real estate--"location, location, 
>> location"--not something over which Bill and Oprah had any particular 
>> prenatal control, just incredibly good luck.
> 
> Sure. But you seem to be complaining that they're wealthy.
> 

I say again, I am _not_ complaining that they're wealthy.  I'm 
_observing_ that they're wealthy not only because they're good at what 
they do (getting wealth, among other things), but because they had the 
immense good fortune to be born in a location where it was possible for 
them to exercise that ability.

>> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_ 
>> percentile and _income_ percentile? 
> 
> It's in that table. I'm not sure what question you're asking, if that 
> table doesn't answer it.
> 

$364,657 is 1st percentile?  Does that seem likely to you?  Really?  And 
does the organization that posted these figures have an agenda?

>> (And don't those figures paint a lovely picture of the gap between the 
>> filthy rich and the dirt poor?)
> 
> What, that less than 1% of the people in the country make more than ten 
> times the median income? You know, that doesn't seem too bad to me.
> 

Columns one and three, top two rows.  Column two is...dubious.  (Think 
about the many, many businesses where the top guys make 100+ times what 
the lowest-paid employees make.  Then review the figures.)

>> Which leads to a bizarre, sideways-to-the-topic speculation:  Is it 
>> actually possible to have more money than you can spend? 
> 
> I think you can have more than you can *not waste* pretty easily. I 
> think having more than you could actually *throw away* would be harder.
> 

Ah.  Define "waste."

>> or is it like that business about not being able to march all the 
>> Chinese past a given point? 
> 
> Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you couldn't 
> spend it all. Other than that...
> 

Why not?

Amelia the Wonder Dog and I are the last two people in the world.  I 
have $10.  She has $5 and the last bottle of Guinness in the world.  I 
say, "Please sell me that bottle of Guinness."  She says, "I will, for 
$10."  You can imagine the rest.

>> You could calculate/guesstimate the amount of income per day or second 
>> or whatever (and the amount of expenditure necessary to reduce that 
>> amount consistently), but how do you calculate potential 
>> expenditures?  In a world that has space tourism and Japanese toilets, 
>> this could be a problem.  Not actually trying to change the subject, 
>> just slightly distracted by a shiny thing. ;)
> 
> Sure. I read that at one point, assuming Bill Gates worked 14 hours a 
> day, it wasn't worth the four seconds it would take for him to bend over 
> and pick up a $500 bill he dropped. I'd say that's "faster than you can 
> spend it."
> 
> Not faster than you can invest it, of course.
> 

There's a speed difference between "spending" and "investing"?

> I know several friends who got into serious grief 
> with the IRS by getting stock grants at $2/share, exercising (but not 
> selling) it when it was $50/share, and then selling it when it was back 
> to $1/share, and nevertheless owing taxes on $48/share even tho they 
> lost money in the whole thing.
> 

I think that's called "evolution at work."
> 
>> I *like* arg-- erm, "discussing" with you--ye're rat smart.  ;)
> 
> I *think* that's a compliment? :-)
> 

Yep.

> 
> I think it's made clear he's just white, a plain old horse.  Magically 
> enhanced, yes. But isn't Mort's first job to shovel up after Binky?
> 

It strikes me that the ability to fly, both in the world and between 
realities (if you count Death's Place as an alternate reality), could 
easily be enough to make your poop sparkle, at least as a side effect, 
but that's just a speculation.  And sure, Mort had to muck out the 
stable, but did he follow Binky around with a pooper-scooper while he 
(Binky, that is) was on duty?  I think not.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message