Dave Ramsey Says Wealth Inequality IS Fair

Submitted by: dromed 4 months ago in News & Politics


A smart, well-informed stance on finances or 'Who gave grandpa the video camera again?'

There are 66 comments:
Male 2,713
I must have submitted  this 6 months ago.  If you don't like what he says, you're a moron.  I'm 50 and retired following Dave's advice.  He and I started in radio at the same time.  
1
Reply
Male 41,551
dromed Terrific post, I've seen a couple of his videos and he makes a lot of sense.

You can tell he has the facts on his side by the outrage the liberal-lefties throw his way, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 21
If you say that wealth inequality is unfair, PLEASE, for the sake of the society...
A. Move out of your parents' house.
B. Get off public assistance.
C. Change your major to get a profitable degree.
and D. Get a job.

Thank you!
-1
Reply
Female 8,169
gravityworks - funny that, I'm 53 have damn good recent degree, work damn hard to support a family. I am also aware that the unregulated free market we have been running since the 80's has caused a massive transfer of wealth to a small amount of people- it has caught millions in a net of poverty they cannot escape and is isn't just that it is unfair because it doesn't reward hard work OR merit, but also that it allows those with money to dictate policy to further enrich themselves. It is neither fair, nor just, it is also stifling innovation and economic growth.
-1
Reply
Female 8,169
Wealth inequality is not beneficial to the populace in general- it isn't a result of rewarding the 'good' traits either- because past a certain point you can be a lazy monster and STILL increase your holdings without effort.
-1
Reply
Male 1,838
I don't think anyone is arguing that wealth inequality is inherently unfair.

Most people argue that (1) providing unequal rewards for equal work is unfair, (2) wealth inequality creates resentment and anger that has repeatedly created more chaos and crime in societies, and (3) a CEO may deserve 2-3 times the salary of an average worker, but not 300 times the salary of an average worker.
0
Reply
Male 8,779
bliznik  providing unequal rewards for equal work is unfair 

'Work' can be defined in different ways.

'Work' is force over a given distance (W=FxD) and measured in Joules.  A person pushing against a wall is exerting himself more than a person lifting a post-it note, but post-it note person is actually performing work while wall pusher is not. 

Lifting a 50 lb bag of fries into a freezer may result in more Joules (or 'Work') than pushing a lever of a forklift to the individual, but the RESULT is the second person lifting 2,000 pounds of fries into a freezer, thus the 'result' is more important than the 'work'. 

And then you have 'risk'.  A guy buys all the equipment, materials and advertising to start a roofing business.  He hires a helper. They both accomplish the same amount of work on an individual roof, but only one has the risk of losing his investment.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
megrendel 

A tall, attractive, white male doing taxes for 8 hours a day will be paid more than a short, unattractive, black, female. That is unfair. THAT is the argument many people make.

There's also the argument that the work that a CEO does is inherently worth more than the work that a janitor does. Which is true, and does make sense. It's incredibly difficult to compare the value of two different jobs that have inherently different metrics.

But when you pay a CEO 500x more than the janitor, the janitor will feel resentment. When there are many, many, many janitors and only a few CEOs, in a society and they live and work so closely together that the janitors see all the nice shiny things that the CEOs have, the resentment that the many, many, many janitors have against the CEOs could, and often does, result in a great upheaval and chaos. When CEOs are only paid 10x the amount of the lowest paid worker, the unrest and chaos is not as great.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 8,779
bliznik  A tall, attractive, white male doing taxes for 8 hours a day will be paid more than a short, unattractive, black, female. That is unfair. 

Show me the two that are working at the same company, with the same workload and working on the same level of clientele and earning similar profit for the company, and I'll show you a lawsuit in the making.

But, if one's practicing in New York and the other in Billings MT, then you're going to have a disparity in wages, no matter which color is in which city. 
0
Reply
Male 1,838
megrendel 

Ask and you shall receive.

https://www.recode.net/2017/4/10/15246444/history-gender-timeline-discrimination-lawsuits-legal-silicon-valley-google-oracle

I grant you that pay disparity in different cities or in different roles is totally fair. Different locations have different overhead costs involved and different comparable job pay scales. That is not the situation in a large majority of these lawsuits. Although, I do admit that there are lawsuits whose foundation lies in ridiculous fact scenarios, and should rightfully be thrown out of court.
0
Reply
Male 410
bliznik The system may be rigged and exploitative, but once you become rich, it's going to feel so good!  *cough* except that isn't going to happen so stop complaining you peasants *cough*
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Then you have not been paying attention at all these past few years.

Sanders and SJWs argue that ANY form of "economic imbalance" is inherently unfair and must be corrected by taking money away from the wealthy. Mostly through taxes or direct confiscation.
1. what do you think $15 minimum wag is? It is precisely unequal work for equal rewards. Same thing!
2. Poverty does not create crime. There has ALWAYS been 'wealth inequality' and there has always been crime, yet the two are entirely unconnected.
3. Says who? You want to bust your hump for 20+ years to get to the top and make 90,000 a year? And CEOs make millions for their companies, shouldn't they be paid more than a pittance for their extremely rare skills?

Should an NHL hockey player be paid '2-3 times' what a MMJHL player makes? Ie: diddly squat? Hell no! There's 100,000 guys who can play at the MMJHL level, and 1000 NHL level guys... thus they get 100X more pay.
-1
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats

There you go again with straw-man arguments. I'm not making those arguments. Those arguments that you make suck, and I also disagree with them.

Regarding your points:

(1) You are correct that a minimum wage is an unequal thing. It's not a perfect solution. The minimum wage is an unequal law that was created as ajn attempt to counterbalance the great imbalance that stems from unchecked capitalism with a few rich and a lot of poor.

(2) You are correct the poverty doesn't create crime. You are also correct that there has always been wealth inequality. That, in and of itself, does not create civil unrest. It's when the wealthy (a) earn so much money in ways that  (b) poor people do not think they can compete with and (c) poor people see the wealth inequality in their day-to-day lives...that is what causes social unrest. Solve any one of those issues, and you prevent social unrest. You can deal with (a) by reducing large wealth disparity so you only have slight wealth disparity. You can deal with (b) by educating poor people in ways so that they can easily understand how they can compete with rich people. You can solve (c) by censoring news and information to prevent poor people from understanding just how rich the wealthy are.

Democrats seem to only want to deal with (a) and (b). Republicans seem to only want to deal with (c). 

(3) I'm not saying that CEOs shouldn't be paid more than their employees. I'm saying that being paid 5x or 10x as much as their employees rewards them sufficiently. Being paid 500x or 1000x as much as their employees not only overrewards them in ways that do not seem fair, but it also creates social unrest and chaos when those who do not get paid that salary constantly see those who do get paid that salary.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik Strawmen? You think on-topic and factual conversation constitutes a 'strrawman' just because you don't agree?
1. You agree with me, yet you still attack me? And I'm supposed to take you seriously and show you the utmost courtesy and respect?
Why should I?

2. Again you agree, then you introduce NEW INFORMATION and bitch that I'm not taking that into consideration?
You go OFF topic just to attack me. Why should I care?

3. So you agree "equality" is unjust and unfair, that UN-EQUAL PAY is perfectly justified. you just disagree on how much. You want strict government controls on wages for everyone? Move to a place where that Utopia already exists.

Where are these "strawmen" you speak of? You agree with all 3 of my points, yet you've attacked me and accused me of using fallacies: show them to me (from the first comment) or apologise
0
Reply
Male 1,838
Sanders and SJWs argue that ANY form of "economic imbalance" is inherently unfair and must be corrected by taking money away from the wealthy. Mostly through taxes or direct confiscation.


That is the strawman argument, not your points (1) (2) and (3)

I don't attack you 5cats. I attack your conclusions. Like I stated, many of your premises are correct. But it seems like your argument is that, because your premises are correct, any wealth inequality is just, right, and good for society. That is what I attack.

I don't really know you man, I only know your arguments. Some parts I agree with, other parts I do not agree with. So I attack the parts of the argument that I don't agree with. But attacking a part of your argument and attacking you are two totally different things. I don't quite know why you equate them.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
bliznik You honestly believ that the SJWs will take money away from rich people (The 1%) through voluntary donations? Honestly? Really now??

Or are they calling for special taxes to 'remove wealth' from them? I've seen dozens of 'liberal thinkers' proposing exactly that in the name of 'income equality'. Wealth is after-tax assets btw: they want to tax the rich more, AND confiscate what they already have saved over the years.

These are facts and unless you can show exactly how the SJWs propose to "redistribute the wealth" without taxes? My argument is solid as Gibraltar.

Inequality is the UNAVOIDABLE result of a FAIR system. That is the argument HERE. Those who seek to make it 'more equal' use UNFAIR methods, exactly like what I described: true facts not strawmen.
Unless you can show otherwise, false alarm from you.
0
Reply
Male 3,801
5cats should a canadian talk about american politcs 24/7 without it being slightly weird?
0
Reply
Male 6,581
I liked the idea some northern European country came up with a few years back, it was something like no ceo can make more than 12 times what the lowest employee makes.  

It was interesting, because if the whole country could have been like that, 'the richest person can't make more than 12 times what the poorest person can make', it would do a lot to prevent the gap from the rich and the poor widening, and everyone would be better off with that gap being as small as possible.

The problem is the obscene amounts of money people make, like a sports player makes more in 1 year than most people make in their entire lives.  no one needs that, and thats just enabling greed.
0
Reply
Male 666
monkwarrior <The problem is the obscene amounts of money people make, like a sports player makes more in 1 year than most people make in their entire lives.  no one needs that, and thats just enabling greed.>

Should you not be a little more concerned with your income and how you are managing it?  The point Dave was making is that it is NOT a zero sum game.  When I get a raise my company does not take it from your pay.

The statement ".. everyone would be better off with that gap being as small as possible" regarding wage gap is silly.  The logical conclusion is that we should all be paid exactly the same regardless of contribution. I think that has worked out great in every case it has been tried.....

"but when you're being paid so much in one year that surpasses the living expenses of one person in their whole life, then there's a problem with greed somewhere in the mix." This assumes that the only worthwhile thing anyone can do is live and just meet expenses.  Where do you think the capital for the arts, new scientific advances, etc. comes from?

Your entire take on this strikes me as envy. I thought better of you....


0
Reply
Male 6,581
dang007 common mistake.  But im quite able to manage my own finances, but the point im trying to make is we need laws against greed, because there are people out there willing to take advantage of others to satisfy their greed, and that is wrong.
0
Reply
Male 666
monkwarrior <<but the point im trying to make is we need laws against greed, because there are people out there willing to take advantage of others to satisfy their greed, and that is wrong>>>

But you can never get rid of greed. You might pass a law about a specific action but "greed" will just raise it's ugly head in some other fashion. And in the mean time the law you passed may cause more harm than good. In other news "greed" is often in the eye of the beholder.  I would imagine a poor child from an impoverished country might find you spending money on a dessert after a meal vs buying him something to eat might smack of "greed" in their eyes....

While I can understand the desire to weed out the base behaviors of the human species, I think a more enlightened approach is a system that utilizes those same fundamental behaviors to improve life in general.  In this frame of reference there has been no greater force than capitalism.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
dang007 "you can never get rid of greed"  you don't know that.

Someone saying "you can never git rid of hate" didn't stop nations from making hate laws.  Yes hate rears its head in other fashions, but the law gets written to stop them.

Also Capitalism is a primary driver of greed.  It makes sense you would say those things you said and end it with a glorification of capitalism, which has failed us due to greed.
0
Reply
Male 666
monkwarrior >>Someone saying "you can never git rid of hate" didn't stop nations from making hate laws. <<   There are no laws against hate.....  There are laws against actions that are viewed as hateful. 

And you missed the point.  The problem is not hate or greed.  Someone can hate all day and it does not affect you until they take action against another. They could be hatey mc hate face and not affect you or anyone else. Same with greed. 

And someone's what you term "greed" might drive them to create new wonderful things.  Things that could and HAVE improved your life not detracted from it. It that sense "greed" is good.


>>>so Capitalism is a primary driver of greed.  which has failed us due to greed.<<<

Your delusion.

The overall lot of humanity has increased dramatically in the last 150 years.  Largely due to capitalism.

The computer you are using right now is the result of someone taking a risk and developing a product.

The fact that the world produces enough calories to meet the worlds needs starting sometime in the 80s was do to development of new farming practices, new crops, new fertilizers, pesticides, etc. All brought to you by capitalist.

The materials used to clean your drinking water a capitalist developed and produced.

Electricity was developed and expanded by capitalist.  You think Edison did it out of the kindness of his heart?

The car you drive.

The cloths you wear.

etc.
etc.
etc.

Capitalism is not a "driver" of "greed" It does utilize the normal human interest in improving their lives to enhance the lives of all. But that is a good thing not a bad thing. 
0
Reply
Male 6,581
dang007 hate crimes is covered under things like prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

The computer would be much powerful now if it wasn't for greed. because the desire to improve it to great lengths wouldn't have been hampered by someone saying "how can i make the most off of this for me, and only the people i know, and damn the others, except for the people who i hire who i will fire when i no longer need them *evil crackle laugh*".

Farming processes wouldn't have taken our food sources hostage (and genetically modified strains of questionable health). If it wasn't for greed there would be many farmers able to make a living rather than one big corporation with a leader with eyes focused on theri love for money who likely never grew a flower, saying "damn those farmers, they're taking away from my nest egg".

etc.

etc.

etc.

But i wouldn't expect you to see it, as you're wound up on the love for money, under the guise of capitalism, which has failed us due to greed.  Go on back to your delusions that there is no greater force than capitalism, and that the love for money will somehow save us all.  Just remember when careless greed has caused irreversible destruction, and food can't grow, you can't eat money.
0
Reply
Male 666
monkwarrior Good job again missing the point and deriding those that disagree with you by assuming things about them.  

Your statement that the computer would be much more powerful now if it wasn't for greed is silly.  If that is the case PROVE IT.  with demonstrable evidence.  When and exactly what improvement or potential improvement has been withheld form the world???

>>The success of modern farming practices and processes taking our food sources hostage.<<< Please give me a break.  Yes certain crops are becoming monovarietal. However, this has happened because the yield of those varieties so much higher. Not from some nefarious master plan of the greedy capitalist. Yes some seeds are only available from some producers. But if they did not have the significant benifet to the growers they would not be used. And hey guess what you are free at any time to develop a better product and release the "grip" of the terrible capitalist.  As for "one big corporate leader" Most agricultural sector have about four large players, yet they only control about 1/2 of each market.  A far cry from "the one big corporate leader" you seem to be so concerned about.

If you are so opposed to capitalism have you given up all the creature comforts that have been provided by that system? Do you live in a grass/ mud hut made by your own hands? Do you only eat food grown, harvested, and processed by you? I doubt it.  But you are of course free to have your own opinions.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
dang007 I'm sorry, the love for money ruins nations, that is what capitalism is ultimately about.  I'm sorry to hear your love for money has caused you to forget history.  Hopefully when you repeat the falls of history it won't be so hard for you.  But maybe then you'll realize that capitalism is nothing next to the power of true love.
0
Reply
Male 666
monkwarrior You seem to have completely confused capitalism with "love of money."  

That misconception is your right and I recognize that you will view everything through that lens. Just like I tend to view everything through the lens of my misconceptions.  You seem to "look down on," disparage, and otherwise impugn the motives of anyone that disagrees with you.

Good luck to you.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
dang007 not at all, i associate capitalism to a driving force of unbridled greed and carelessness, like that recent report that came out making it clear that human pollution in the last 15 decades is making things worse (since the 1860's), and we are in trouble if we don't stop. So yeah, your beloved 'capitalism' turns out to be one of the most destructive forces in the world, becaise of it's greed.

Good luck to you too, don't put too much faith in capitalism, it'll fail you for sure.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
monkwarrior It rewards risk, not greed. Without risk there is nothing new, no new businesses, no investments. People may be greedy and take risks to make more money, but that's entirely different.

A sports player risks his whole life on the chance to get into 'the big leagues' and make those millions. For every top-tier player there's 100 or 1000 who never made it and never will.
-1
Reply
Male 6,581
5cats still no justification for that 1 player to make more in 1 year than the 100 or 1000 of people who didn't make it will ever make in their life (40 years of work or more)
0
Reply
Male 41,551
monkwarrior I fail to see it. I cannot do a job that you can do: lets say it's heart surgery, and I pump gas for a living.
You should NOT be paid more than me for all they years of toil and effort it took to become a doctor and then a heart specialist, all those skills you developed, the university fees, yet we should both be paid the exact same amount? Because it's unjustified that you should earn more than I do?
Interesting!
0
Reply
Male 6,581
5cats you should be paid more, your worth, but when you're being paid so much in one year that surpasses the living expenses of one person in their whole life, then there's a problem with greed somewhere in the mix.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
monkwarrior Again, the fact that "some people are poor" in no way is your fault, in no way is your responsibility, and in no way changes the hard work and risks you've put in.

Punishing success is not the way to get people to try harder: it makes them give up entirely. Are hockey players "overpaid"? YEs they are, but government regulations are not the answer! The free market will eventually lower the wages or the league will collapse: risk and reward is always, inherently, unequal.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
5cats you're missing the point.  I'm not saying punishing excess at all, i'm simply saying that when excess is entering the realm of greed where one person is making in 1 year what someone struggles their whole life to make (much harder work too, not freely skating around after going to hockey practice 3 nights a week for 10 years, i'm talking 30-40 years of backbreaking thankless work) then it needs to be dealt with.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
monkwarrior Dealt with how? By.... punishment! Remove their freedom of making a lawful paycheque.
Remove the incentive for hard work and what will be left?
Remove the rewards for having skills and who will bother to dedicate their lives to perfecting them?
Should a singer be 'allowed' to earn millions? How about an actor? A surgeon, an inventor, anyone who perfects a craft that millions of others simply cannot do: don't they deserve some return on their investment?

How can anyone legislate (because that is what you are saying: laws) who is allowed to get what? Chairman Mao and Pol Pot had perfect solutions, yes? I'm being perfectly serious: no one gets anything except the Chosen Elite who just happen to be the Communist Party rulers.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
5cats That's for people to vote on, but the underlying thought is:
"The love for mamon is the root of all evil"
0
Reply
Male 41,551
monkwarrior Right, but the fruit pickers negotiated "unfair" contracts did they not? Some got paid for a half-day, others had to work a full day for the same pay. Income inequality is covered in the Bible :-)

As you sow, thus also shall you reap. You work hard? You get rewards. You fail to work and you are poor.
0
Reply
Male 6,581
5cats The point is that in this day and age greed is a problem that is taken advantage of by many people, and it's up to us to have laws to prevent it.
0
Reply
Male 15,396
I agree when he says:

  • Society should reward merit.
  • You need to work hard and and make smart decisions to succeed.
  • Faced with adversity and bias, you should work as hard as you can, rather than giving up.

These above are positive sentiments. People would be more productive and society would benefit as a whole.

However, I don't agree with him when:

  • He thinks it's OK that society does not reward equal merit and equal effort with equal rewards.
  • He says we should not resent this bias, nor seek to address it through policy or personally helping others.

These are destructive and logically fallacious. An equal playing field ensures fair return for a fair job of work. I equality disincentivizes both the downtrodden whose efforts won't pay off and the entitled rich, who will live well no matter what they do.

It's the same logic that underpinned Manifest Destiny, imperialism, slavery, furdalism/serfdom and the like.

I would say to the individual: "Just get on with it. Be disciplined, diligent, smart and climb the economic ladder with all your might."

I would say to society and our thought leaders: "Actively level the playing field so that the poor have every opportunity and benefit disproportionately more from their efforts and the rich must likewise do all they can to maintain their status."
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
Draculya An 'equal playing field' means everyone has the same opportunities, NOT that everyone makes the team and scores an equal number of goals regardless of skill or effort.

If Society rewards merit? Then those without merit get what? Equal rewards or UN-equal rewards? Which is it, you cannot have it both ways. Hard work pays more than lax efforts, that is WHY there is inequality. Taking money away from the hard workers fixes nothing.
-2
Reply
Male 15,396
5cats In simple terms, if one soccer team plays in foot restraints, neither team tries hard. The shackled cannot win so they shuffle about not giving a damn. The unencumbered tap one or two goals in and take it easy because they cannot lose.

Whereas, if you have two unmatched teams and the weaker one starts a couple of goals up, both teams play their hearts out because the outcome is not a given.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
Draculya That is support of the premise of this video, you do understand that yes? That you are agreeing with him (and me) not arguing against it?
You could be a little clearer in your support, it looks a lot like you're arguing...

The idea behind SJWs is that BOTH sides of the match are controlled by rules saying everyone scores one goal and the game will end in a tie. How does that reward merit? If one team worked on training, practice, teamwork, fair play, and the other team did nothing at all? Just 'showed up'? That outcome is "equal" but it is grotesquely UN-fair.

Added: He never says people should not help each other (your bullet point #5) quite the opposite! That's part of working hard, as a team, yes? You help your friends/allies and they help you. Free Market common sense. Choice.

He says the Government should not punish the successful and take their well-earned rewards away from them. That is unfair! And that's exactly what socialists and SJWs want: for other people's money to find its way into their (or the government's) hands without work. By force, preferably.

Paying fair taxes is part of living in society: he never says there should be no taxes, or that the rich shouldn't pay more (which they DO btw) than the poor do. However? Limiting wealth and confiscation are entirely separate and THAT is what he objects to.
0
Reply
Male 40,490
You can't change your family tree.
-2
Reply
Male 410
So essentially the underlying implicit message is 'sure the system is unfair/rigged, but I want you to be the ones at the top like me so it works really great for you'. Real words of 'wisdom' to live by.
1
Reply
Male 41,551
mrsnowmeiser Well he does want people to be 'on the top' but they should get there by their own efforts, not by governments taking money away from others and giving it to them.

He is addressing the subject of "inequality is unfair" and that's the main point. Inequality IS fair (he argues) because un-equal work SHOULD yield un-equal rewards.

Robbing from the rich and giving it to the bureaucrats only works until the rich run out of money or move away... then what? Venezuela, that's what. 
-2
Reply
Male 21
5cats , You get it! Thanks.
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
gravityworks Thank you for your support! :-)

Try to ignore all the liberal-leftist trolls, they're a constant plague but have literally nothing to say. No point speaking to them or even pointing out simple facts: they will still attack and insult.
1
Reply
Male 21
5cats Agreed. I'll have to add, it's so easy (and fun!) to get them all riled up. ;) Logic has a way of doing that to some people.
0
Reply
Male 719
"It would be unfair for everyone to get an A"

Urmm what the fuck is he blabbing about? This is why old senile people shouldn't be given a platform.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
fuad119 You spend dozens of hours preparing for your big exam. I play games and hang out.
We both take the test, we both get an A+. Actually I handed in a blank paper since I didn't know any answers, but A+ for me!!

Question: Is that fair to you? It is clearly "equal" but is it fair? Justified?
0
Reply
Male 719
5cats Urmm whuut? The wasn't his premise, his premise was by working hard you can be successful. Well it doesn't always work out that way. There are people who work hard that don't get to be successful.

Also to answer your question if you didn't study and handed in a blank paper you should get an F but if you don't study and handed in the paper with correctly answered question, even if I worked hard and got the same marks as you that is fine.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
fuad119 His premise, the point he makes, is that "Wealth inequality is fair" as opposed to being inherently unfair (the SJW position).

Working hard creates the possibility for wealth, it does not guarantee it, ok? He said he himself lost all his money at one point. Not working hard is likely the guarantee you will NOT prosper, that's his point there too.

You want wealth equality? Work hard. Don't demand other people hand you their wealth for no work at all. Do not punish success and reward failure.

No. If you get an A+ and I get an F that is unequal, it is unfair because mark-inequality is BAD ok? You have to give me some of your marks to me at the very least: You get a B and I get a C+. See? Fair!
0
Reply
Male 41,551
Excellent points, the pauses in his speaking pattern are actually a good thing :) Although I'm sure some folks will find them annoying, lolz!
0
Reply
Male 474
5cats Pauses were only annoying when Obama did it. This guy's pauses show deliberation. 
1
Reply
Male 41,551
boredhuman True, Obama was obviously reading the teleprompter. If it was an interview he'd stammer and um-um repeatedly... 
Hillary had 'laugh now' written into her speeches and on the prompter :/

Actually he is using 'dramatic pause' where the speaker gives the listener time to process the information. The opposite of 'machinegun delivery' eh?
0
Reply
Male 474
"I want to make you wealthy. I want to show you how to handle money so you can become vastly wealthy" 
How does he do that? Through amazing motivational speaking!
"equal is unfair" 
"when you spell 'America' backwards, it spells 'opportunity'" 
"Opportunity is right in front of you, it's dressed like work clothes though"
So much concentrated wisdom.  
Get out of IAB - Go out there and work! 
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
boredhuman His words whistled in one ear and out the other eh? You didn't see what he was actually saying at all. At least you watched it...

"Equality" is unfair, yes. Just like giving every student in a class an A+ if they: studied hard, didn't study, if they didn't even hand in the test paper. How is it "fair" if those students all get A+ disregardless of effort or learning?
-2
Reply
Male 15,396
5cats By your "A+" analogy, everyone would be a billionaire, or at least successful, even the most unproductive members of society on welfare.

You know that's not the case. Welfare pays just about enough to survive.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
Draculya Yes, everyone would have billions of dollars, exactly like Zimbabwe, ok? Because everyone would earn $300,000,000 an hour. :/

Why would getting an A+ make someone successful if they never actually learned anything? Huh? Where does that come from? The whole point of the A+ analogy is that if you didn't work for it? It is meaningless, it will not help you later in life.
0
Reply
Male 474
Oh his words will stay between my ears: today's thought leaders in the US are kids who are living in their parents' basement typing "wealth inequality is unfair." 
You didn't see what he was actually saying at all
You need to listen to this guy, 5cats. Learn from him: "I'm the half the class that allowed the upper half to happen." This guy studied HARD, and despite it barely got Bs while his classmates were getting A's without effort. Maybe it's because he started his own lawn mowing business at age 12 - talk about child labor! 
This guy has it all figured out. What a role model. We should all follow in his footsteps!
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
boredhuman Oh ok, I agree, his words and ideas are interesting. I thought you were being sarcastic :/
-1
Reply
Male 8,175
boredhuman Hey I'm doing well so that means you aren't trying hard enough, give me more money and I'll tell you how to become WEALTHY!?

Who believes this tripe?
-1
Reply
Male 41,551
normalfreak2 So you listened to the first 30-60 seconds and made up your mind the entire video was the same, right? That's an improvement for you actually, at least you started watching! Usually you just go by the title.

He goes on to make a lot of valid points, but you didn't listen to those so...

I don't recall him saying anything remotely like what you "quoted" from him, you lie like a rug.
He never asks for money, lair! He's talking about wealth inequality and how he wants everyone listening to "be the problem" by becoming wealthy. He goes on to explain that, but you stopped listening entirely by then.
-1
Reply
Male 15,396
5cats I recommend you stop presuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you didn't watch the video, is so stupid as to be unable to understand it, or be so biased as to let logic fly over their heads.

Make the effort to debate people on facts and logic, with an open mind. It would reflect better on you and your side of the debate.
0
Reply
Male 41,551
Draculya The freak NEVER even LOOKS at the sources provided. He'll bitch about things clearly explained in the first paragraph of them! Over and over he does that, it's disgusting.
HE just made up lies about what was said in the video. If he only watched the first 30-60 seconds of it he might have come to that (false) conclusion, because by 4 minutes in it is fully explained.

THUS he didn't watch it, and LIED about it too. Fuck him.

PS: I noted that someone else had clearly watched the entire video, so NO I do NOT presume that every time, thanks.
0
Reply