And this is why some folks didn't get what I meant by using the term
"scam" the other day with reference to people in Silicon Valley. It's
been very interesting to watch (as well as be part of) the excesses of
wealth in the area where VC's (also known as "Vulture Capitalists" by
the old timers) throw money at startups.
One con game that is popular here is 1) putting together some wild idea
and then 2) getting the VC's to invest in it, 3) folding the company
when the VC funding runs out and then go back to step 1 again and repeat
the process. Occasionally one of the wild ideas does take off at which
point a "really big company" will come along and buy it out.
Regarding the "rich", I did know a couple of children of an old money
family. Before they were allowed access to their trusts they had to go
out and prove that they knew the value of money by supporting
themselves. True, this was a very liberal family line and pro the
people. I suspect the conservative rich raise their kids to be pirates
and to rape and plunder.
On 01/21/2014 08:30 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Ann, I agree that there's an instinct to survive. But I don't think
there's an instinct "to survive in style," as you say. I think
anything beyond basic survival needs is conditioned into us by the
people and circumstances of our childhood. Remember the significance
of "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane? Of course we're also hugely conditioned
by our culture and this conditioning, from what I've read, spreads to
the remotest corners of the earth via TV, etc. Supposedly Dallas was
one of the most popular shows in Saudia Arabia!
I am not sure about the "conditioning" aspect with regard to wanting
that little bit of "style". I have lived in converted (barely)
garages, I have lived in basement suites with no natural light, I have
lived in mouse-infested and rat-infested temporary hovels and virtual
shacks for one reason or another at various times (one of those times
was when we were building our current house and we lived in the small
1935 hut/house for 16 months). Believe me, I have experienced some
pretty basic living conditions in the US and in Canada (including the
most cockroach-infested apartment on the second floor of the one of
the buildings around the square in FF during the late 70's.) And while
I don't require solid gold doors, hardwood instead of old lino floors
is nice, glass instead of plastic cups is preferable and a toilet that
is not stained brown and flushes properly is my choice, in a pinch. We
are talking about relative degrees here, not so much absurd levels
where someone feels anything less than four houses and three yachts is
unthinkable. "Style" can simply mean aesthetic over bare minimum.
I think it's a matter of degree. I would wish for everyone on earth to
have their basic needs met and even be comfortable. But I've seen
pictures of solid gold doors in Dubai. Does someone really need a
solid gold door to their house in order to be comfortable?!
You are actually reinforcing my point with your examples: people tend
to spiral toward absurdity, toward more and toward "better" and a
level of consumption that can begin to border on obscene. And we are
not simply talking about "the rich", we are talking about the guy in
Dubai (your example) or the kid on the streets of some tough city
whose idea of heaven is owning a big car and wearing lots of gold
jewelry and might do just about anything to obtain those things.
I admit I don't understand how such an imbalance continues decade
after decade. There are people who collect very expensive cars for a
hobby. And there are babies starving to death every day. I don't
understand how this continues.
Because it appears to be human nature, or at least the nature of a
fairly large percentage of humans. MMY talked about this, we tend to
move in the direction of greater and greater happiness and bliss, like
little monkeys. It's just that for many, this idea of "bliss" is in
the form of collecting and surrounding themselves with more and more
stuff. And we haven't even touched on the subject of the power hungry.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:22 AM, "awoelflebater@..."
<awoelflebater@...> wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote:
>
> I'd ride with 'em, I ain't prejudiced agin rich folk.
*/Personally, I suspect that the planet would be better off if we
managed to get all 85 of these people on one bus, and then
threatened them with driving the bus off a cliff with them on it
unless they signed over all of their money to the poor people they
fucked over to get it. After they signed, then we'd take the
signed papers, get off the bus and push it over the edge anyway,
and then redistribute the funds. /*
*/
/*
*I love the "we" part. As if the average human being wouldn't pocket
the ransacked money and make off with it themselves. Rich or poor, the
basic instinct is to survive and to survive in style. Those who claim
they wouldn't love an extra $1,000,000 in the bank are fooling
themselves. Granted, many are loathe to cheat and steal their way to
accessing this and many would consider a billion dollars a little
unnecessary but greed, avarice and the love of the good life is, to
some extent, in all of us. Take a guy like Leonardo in his role as the
Wolf, take away his gazillions and he'd still be the loan shark, the
pimp or the drug dealer clawing his way toward his idea of fame and
fortune. You don't have to be rich to embody all sorts of loathsome
traits.
But that may just be how I feel today, after having been forced to sit
through "The Wolf Of Wall Street." I now completely agree with
everything said in the open letter
<http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2013/12/26/an-open-letter-to-the-makers-of-the-wolf-of-wall-street-and-the-wolf-himself>written
by **/Christina McDowell, daughter of one of the real-life scumbags
who worked with the real-life Jordan Belfort. I think that Martin
Scorcese, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all of the other producers who
glorified greed and immorality in this film should be sentenced to
spend the rest of their lives doing "community service" by making
movies about the "little people" these real-life scumbags ripped off,
and whose lives they ruined.
Those of you who mouth off about misogyny, you really haven't even
*seen* misogyny until you've seen this movie. There is not a woman in
the film who isn't portrayed as a bimbo, a hooker, and just one more
rube to be fucked and fucked over. I literally had to take a shower
after watching it.
The experience made me rethink Martin Scorcese's work as a whole. Yes,
he has made the occasional film that *doesn't* celebrate greed,
corruption, and misogyny (although the only ones I can think of right
now are "Hugo," "The Last Temptation of Christ," and "Kundun"), but
those subjects have been the focus of and the preoccupation of almost
*all* of his other films. Only 3 films as a director out of 55 *not*
about slimeballs. And his next film is going to be about Frank
Sinatra. What a fuckin' waste of creative talents. /*
*/
/*
*I could tell this film was worth a big miss by watching 2 minutes of
the trailer. It looked like an indulgent mess on everyone's part.
*
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 1/21/14, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote:
>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] New meaning for Kesey's "Are you on the
bus or off the bus?"
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014, 8:19 AM
>
> According to a recent
> OXFAM report the 85 people who own *half of the planet's
> wealth* could all fit onto this bus:
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/oxfam-bus-wealth_n_4616103.html
>
