Fuck Notre Dame. Seriously.

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Apr 18, 2019.

  1. Eshanas

    Eshanas Mildly Dipped

    531
    Jul 6, 2016
    No, dolt. You have no reading comprehension.

    We're saying that money should go towards alleviating issues that people are currently out there protesting and suffering from. THEN you can splurge on the fancier shit. The Statues were still there. Notre Dame's still standing. But you had people suffering in squalor in Afghanistan and you have mass protests on the streets of France as the Centrist government strips away their welfare state, gives tax breaks to the rich, puts taxes on the car-owners - focus on them first. And the world comes out, doesn't give a damn about the people, but then goes ape-shit for some statues most never heard of or a Cathedral that was only brought back into the public mind because of a fictional novel and movie based off of that novel. Like they're so important!
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  2. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Insallah!

    Thinking that French budget bigger than 300 billion needs one more billion on top of it in order to turn France into paradise with fairies flapping their winds in morning breeze and shit? Okay.
     
  3. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    981
    Oct 26, 2016
    It's easy to be generous with other people's money.
     
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Begs the question why use it on a church, which will be rebuild either way and not giving it to people that would benefit from it?

    It's also funny when you say 'People's money'. How do they get this money in the first place? Do the donators sell all their products themself?
     
  5. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    981
    Oct 26, 2016
    Who am I to tell a billionaire what s/he should spend his/her money on? Regardless of the dollar amount, would you want someone else telling you what to do with your money? This is a question grounded in principle.

    It's none of my business. If they see the value in a church then who am I to tell them 'no that's a waste of money.' You're certainly free to lament their decision, though.

    I mean, there's people that donate to Ninja on twitch in values ranging from $1 to thousands of dollars. It's completely pointless if you ask me, but someone saw the value of his entertainment and deemed it appropriate to fill his account.

    Essentially, what I'm saying is pretend the church is a twitch titty streamer and the donor is a 13 year old boy with lots of money to spend.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    It already happens. We're only talking about how much not if.

    As long as there are states, governments and nations, there will never be a situation where you pay no taxes. So it is bit moot to talk about the 'what if'. And I am not going to discuss the necessity of taxes and why it's important to have a good infrastrcuture and public service, like a jurisdiction, police, firefighters, education and so on.

    It's the business of the state which is actually meant to represent the people. We all benefit from the infrastructure, what ever if we're rich or poor. People that own large companies need the infrastrucutre even more, however people with low and small incomes have to depend more on it, as they can't afford the alternatives to public transport systems, schools, health care you name it. So the more you earn, the higher should your taxes be. That simple. This benefits all, since well, no one who's wealthy moves to Somalia, a state with pretty much no taxation and infrastructure.

    The larger the gab between the rich and poor becomes, the more money do they have to spend on security and keeping them self shielded from the poor. Poverty, is one of the most expensive issues a modern society has. It comes with serious costs to the society and economy. So any money that's spend here to lower the gab, is like an investment.

    Most arguments for reducing poverty in the U.S., especially among children, rest on a moral case for doing so—one that emphasizes the unfairness of child poverty, and how it runs counter to our national creed of equal opportunity for all.

    But there is also an economic case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty, they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime (though that’s not the case for the vast majority) and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/is...007/01/24/2450/the-economic-costs-of-poverty/

    On top of it, a large chunk of the wealth, is actually inherited. The numbers say, 20% of the millionairs actually inherited their wealth. And we can also observe a growing concentration of wealth and money - which also brings a lot of power, in the hands of fewer individuals, which is a severe problem for a democracy.

    The fear of Piketty and others is that rising income inequality over the last four decades will eventually lead to greater wealth inequality as the “haves” are able to sock away larger amounts of savings, while the “have-nots” increasingly struggle to do so. With greater concentrations of wealth will come bigger inheritances, as the richest Americans pass on fortunes to their children. Intergenerational social mobility could decline, as inherited wealth grows in importance relative to self-made wealth.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...01/30/wealth-inheritance-and-social-mobility/

    And we havn't even talked about the methods of how very large wealth is actually generated. When you go and invest a million in Hedgefonts and receive 100 of Millions in interests, it's only possible because someone somewhere out there is actually working for those interest. Be it by owning large portions of land, a company that's growing, selling more goods, developing and manufacturing new technologies, or due to rising prices and so on. And a large part of it, is created by explotation of labour and the environment as someone somewhere has to pay for those grow rates. In other words, the inequality is growing. Particularly as money has the tendency to flow up, rather than down.

    So as you can see, it indirectly is your business, if you're not a billionair as you're also participiating in this society and should have a keen interest on keeping the social stability and good infrastructure which contributes to the economy and the improvement of it.
     
  7. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    981
    Oct 26, 2016
    I get that, but this isn't tax money going to the church - if it was you'd have a strong case for where it should really be going. Again, it really isn't my business - I participate and pay my dues already which is filtered into various local projects, charities, etc. That's the reality of this situation.

    You're arguing that all the wealth concentrated at the top is ill-gotten, by one mean or another, and that they now have an intrinsic, morale duty to donate that money to the people they procured it from. It's pretty weird because it's not related to the scope of what I'm saying - people donating to what they want to, and it's a cart before the horse issue. You've basically told a criminal that the money they've stolen should be used to help the sick and needy.

    For what it's worth I think that ultimately you're right, but you're missing the crux of what I'm saying which isn't really related to how that wealth was achieved. It's just moving the goal posts.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I missunderstood your intentions, my bad.

    Not all of it, no. It's a mathematical problem created by the economic system we have. That's simply how it works. Money flows to the top. This has nothing to do with moral, ethics or anything like that.

    One way to explain it is the Pareto Distribution.

    The Pareto distribution, named after the Italian civil engineer, economist, and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, is a power-law probability distribution that is used in description of social, scientific, geophysical, actuarial, and many other types of observable phenomena. Originally applied to describing the distribution of wealth in a society, fitting the trend that a large portion of wealth is held by a small fraction of the population, the Pareto distribution has colloquially become known and referred to as the Pareto principle, or "80-20 rule", and is sometimes called the "Matthew principle". This rule states that, for example, 80% of the wealth of a society is held by 20% of its population.

    Another issue comes from the mathemtical characteristics of exponential growth rates with interests which require an always growing production and economy, however this is not sustainable in the long run, in a world with physical limitations like space and resources or labor.

    Wealth concentrating on the top, simply leads to a situation where the social stability of a society is threatened if the issue gets ignored for to long. Hence why we have to find ways as a society, to preven those from happening. I do not know how you see things, but I would rather want to live in a stable society. If it means we can also prevent people from living in terrible conditions, that's definetly a plus.

    It simply frustrates me to see that organisations which try to save lives, struggle to get money for decades. Then a church burns down. And you get billions in 1 or 2 days. A place like Notre Dame might be important, I see the historical value and it WILL be rebuild either way, as it belongs to the state after all. But we're talking about the lives of thousands of people here. At which point is Notre Dame worth the lives of people? 10? 100? Maybe a Million? If you could help a Million people, would it then be OK to not donate to Notre Dame?

    It's a sign of our time, that we have the wrong priorities. And not just in this topic, but in many others as well.
     
  9. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 26, 2007
    So does that [also] mean that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the population?
     
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    It's talking about wealth and ownership, not labor.

    The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1][2] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[3] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, as published in his first work, Cours d'économie politique. Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.

    But wealth and the generation of wealth is not always tied to labor, particularly if we're talking about very large numbers:

    how billionaires make money

    Most of the billionaires has their asset as investments. Let's take an example of Bill Gates for example. The value of his Microsoft holdings and Microsoft's stock price makes him where he is today.


    In other words, you reach a point where the money you earn is not in relation anymore to your own labor. You get it mainly trough investements and share of companies. In other words, you let people work for you. That's how millions and billions are generated. The highest paying salary, is eventually 300.000$ per year. But we're looking here at occupations that can require up to 7 years of education at a university, like anesthesiologists and surgeons.
     
  11. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    For real? Thought it was nearly one billion, with Pinault alone pledging hundred million which caused quite uproar. Also I realized this morning that my own toilet is worth more than whole Afghanistan to me.
     
  12. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 26, 2007
    The 80/20 rule applies to a lot of things; like for some businesses, 80% of their profits come from 20% of their customers... or 20% of their products account for 80% of their sales.
     
  13. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    I find amusing how foreign donors including Diyanet poured billions euros to thousands of new German mosques in the last decade without local moral beacons such as Vuk giving a shit. The moment some French duder decide to do the same for historical cathedral in Paris everyone goes apeshit, with mental powerhouse @Eshanas adding "muh suffering in Afghanistan" on top of it.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Possible.

    *Edit
    But I have not yet found an example about the distribution of work in the population by the Pareto principle.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  15. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Мутанты не допускаются

    Nov 22, 2009
    You being from Slovakia means there is a high probability that you have at least some Muslim genetic heritage.
     
  16. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    Muslim genes. :freak:
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  17. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
  18. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Мутанты не допускаются

    Nov 22, 2009
  19. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    LOL
    That's perfectly fine by me, feel free to call me southern darkie anytime you wish.
     
  20. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Мутанты не допускаются

    Nov 22, 2009
    Does Slovakia still have territorial disputes with Hungary? As a Finn I have to side with my Fenno-Ugric Hungarian bros.