I had a debate earlier today. I thought it might be fun to get more opinions here. The issue is in the poll, which, all things going well, should appear above.
Printable View
I had a debate earlier today. I thought it might be fun to get more opinions here. The issue is in the poll, which, all things going well, should appear above.
Overuse of ellipses...
I don't what the question is, it makes no sense to me. :sad:
The question is what impresses you more, fortune inherited or fortune made. Then the poll grants the voter some time for reflection and introspection, and asks the question again. Sorry, it is a bit confusing. Please answer either of the first two poll options, and/or the last two. The middle two options are not answers, but the question.
I dunno, if the Old Money person is classier than the New Money person, than I guess the OM is more impressive. I don't know if I know what old money is like in Europe, probably different than over here. But here I've met and seen alot of disgusting rich children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90HhZ-pyC2Y
:laugh4:
hey, as the self-proclaimed king of ellipses, i demand we meet at noon in the town square with guns drawn, 10 paces.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
now, on topic, i definitly think that money earned, hence also new money, is more admirable than people who had it coming.
anyone read "the great gatsby"? its all about old money vs. new money.
Thanks Louis, now I answered.
That's actually an interesting question. As an American, of course I must default to admiration of newly-made fortunes. Particularly if the fortune-maker started with nothing.
However, there are other things to consider. We've all heard about lottery winners squandering their newfound cash on crap, and ending up penniless. And we've all seen TV accounts of first-generation sons and daughters of self-made millionaires, going bad.
Impresses? Hmmm. I think much can be said for "old money" that started out as some patriarch's good idea; developed and marketed wisely by future generations, especially if those generations had got to double-digits, still held considerable assets, and had figured a way to "give back" to their product constructors and product consumers.
On the other hand, innovation and adaptation are key to our survival as a species, so it must be awarded with appropriate wealth, and applauded.
So, I guess that puts me firmly in the ellipses camp, which I take to idicate the 'new Gah'.
Am I wrong, or is this Louis' first ever poll?
The conversation, in brief:
'X': Earned money is more impressive. It conveys achievement.
L VI: bollox. :laugh:
'X': You are stuck in the past. We are a meritocracy. People admire the self-made man over the easy path of those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
L VI: bollox. :laugh: :laugh::laugh:
'X': What are you going on about?
L VI: People are always more impressed with fortune somebody didn't have to work for, than with fortune for which they did.
Besides, people envy the latter, and admire the former.
'X': I've never heard somebody say he did.
L VI: Because nobody will admit to it. But, look at society, look at class, the mechanism is completely there. In this instance, as in many others, people say one thing and think another.
'X': I don't.
L VI: Yes you do.
Ah okay, now I understand it more clearly. Yeah, money stolen or unearned is twice as sweet as money worked for (I think that's a quote from a movie I can't remember, which adds some serious weight). I'd like to change my vote.
Who wants to be Bill Gates? He has to work and be busy all day. Paris Hilton tho? What a gig.
:yes:
Yet when Bill Gates dies it'll be 'good riddance', but people will cry for weeks over Diana...:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
The impressiveness of "old money" depends on how it was acquired in the first place. "Great-great-grand daddy made a fortune off of high quality buttons!" is way less impressive than "Great-great-grand daddy was Grand Duke of the principality of Sealand!"
The same applies to "new money" as well. "I got rich by mass marketing organic tofurkey!" is not as impressive as "Actor, rock star, striker for (Insert major footy team here)".
I am trying to understand the heart of the question, and your exchange with your colleague helps a great deal.
You are trying to understand class and people's reaction to it. Why indeed, class still matters in the modern Western world when the majority falls into the middle class. I did not think so at first reading, but "impressed" is actually a good word to choose. To address this part of the debate may take me some time and thought, so forgive me if I go first to the obvious question in the poll.
First of all, I'm not sure the categories are quite fine enough. I would argue that New Money ought to take in both earned (through entrepreneurial activity) and chance (lottery wins and "celebrities" - ie the vacuous and talentless who nonetheless become rich through circumstance). Similarly, Old Money should be divided into recent inheritance (three generations* from source or so, and invariably a single major source) and stewardship (several generations that have preserved and grown a fortune over time, each contributing).
I am greatly impressed by entrepreneurial money. The work taken to become truly rich through innovation and hard work is a wonder to behold. Money is invariably merely a measure of this work. Often, as befits a business mind, they use money wisely. I do not count bankers in this category, as they are gamblers.
As you might expect, I have great respect (impressed constrains too short a time frame) for those whose families have achieved stewardship. To hold a fortune passed on, and maintain it through the vicissitudes of time and political vagary, is an extraordinary achievement. Again, whilst there is often a generation or two that dented the steady progress, the fact that the accumulated wealth continues to exist (and usually in possession of riches valued and shared by the community, like art and architecture) is a barely conceivable achievement. It places a heavy burden upon each inheritor.
The other types are invariably vulgar and display money as if to justify their existence. There is nothing impressive about luck, much less about celebrity and recent inheritance.
* There's an old saying: Fortune lasts for three generations; one to make it, one to appreciate it, and one to squander it.
I can assure you, Louis, I have never in my life wept a single tear over the misfortunes of upper-class brats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Anybody who can earn the kind of wealth required to be considered in the uppermost wealth bracket is impressive. What I generally find just as impressive, is if that money is well spent, invested, and carried on between generations. Old money doesn't usually last too long, if the people who inherit it don't know the finer principles on how to be frugal. Since so many were born to a life of lavishness, when they become the inheritors many believe the money won't run out... big, mistake.
Neither impresses me. Why should it? If someone does a great deal of good with this money then I'll be impressed, but the act of earning/inheriting the money itself doesn't impress me in the slightest.
Yes, that brat Diana did nothing with her life before she died except successfully promote an international campaign to ban land mines and a treaty (Ottawa Treaty) banning anti personnel land mines which was signed by only 156 countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quite the brat she was, if she had not been born into riches she could have gained your respect, huh HoreTore?
Nope, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Well I would love to see what accomplishments you have achieved, so I can fully understand where you set the bar at and figure out how much Diana lacked in gaining your respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Why would I be impressed by somebody because he has a lot of money? If the question is about how impressed I am, then the answer is "gah".
As for respect, I respect people who make money through their own hard work. If that person happens to use "old money" to make even more money, then I'll respect that person, just like I would respect somebody who made his fortune out of nothing (assuming the fortune is not being made through crime). Somebody who behaves like a spoiled idiot and wastes money will be considered a spoiled idiot by me; doesn't matter if the money that's being wasted is "old" or "new".
Anyway, you'll need to come with something better than "I have a lot of money" to impress me.
None of that impresses me, but I can respect someone doing well. Old money, yuk. No respect whatsoever.
The best thing I do with my salaries as assistant lecturer... After get the money, I usually spare an ammount to go with my GF, and then we go eat something delicious and take a walk to a shopping district... really impressive, because I allready had a scholarship.....
(NB: with the very exception when I got to save my money to buy that ridiculous Empire! :furious3: the worst money spending that I ever do...)
Nouveaux Riches are usually utterly and completely disgusting.
Quickly earned money makes turn people into irresponsible idiots. What makes it even worse is that, while half of them honestly admit they don't give a crap about anything and just spend foolishly their money, the other half try to wrap itself in a cloak of respectability and morality (while they don't really care about anything either).
While I usually can't stand the sons of lawyers/doctors I meet everyday at my university, they at least have something, and education, and attitude, unlike Audrey and other braindead friends. Being the son of a nurse and of a teacher, I feel a bit awkward when dealing with people coming from the former nobility or from the high bourgeoisie (typical class relationship), but I couldn't care less about spoiled brats whose dad got rich by putting up a computer-related start-up.
Hmm, I voted earned money because people who earned their money by building up their own company impress me, partly because they might also know what it's like not to be rich, with earned money I also understand really earned, as in not won or gained through illegal means. Bill Gates impresses me for this reason.
I also voted old money because by new money I usually understand upstarts who just made their first millions and then have to show them around to everybody, they might however mature and become wiser which would also put them into the old money camp as far as my interpretation goes. I wouldn't see Bill Gates for example as new money since his company has existed for over ten years, he's been rich for quite some time, he gives a lot to charity, does not seem to completely spoil his kids, often wears pullovers instead of fancy suits, he earned his money by creating the base for a product that is sold and accepted worldwide now, people may say it's bad but he wouldn't be rich if it was so bad that noone bought it. Yes, he impresses me but I wouldn't call him new money, IMO new wears off after a few years, as has been said, some lottery winners manage to go bankrupt after two years, that would be new money, if they can be reasonable about it, keep it and invest it well, then IMO they start becoming old money, yet it was not earned, neither inherited. :shrug:
Some people are lucky on the market, some people are lucky in the lottery, some people are lucky at birth, what you do with it is what counts.
If I won the lottery, I wouldn't be an idiot with it. I would obviously get myself a house (as I haven't the money at the moment to get one) and other things similar to that, but it will pretty much be invested.
Nothing impressive about old money, but you can respect what people do with it. Some new money fortunes are pretty impressive, if only because of the sheer size of them.
Ugh, don't remind me about that book. Not to mention the film version with Robert Redford... the chararcter that plays Daisy is the most annoying person I've ever seen... it's funny when she gets run over though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
I think this is an aussie thing, hard working middle class labourers are Australia's "aristocracy". If however, there is a choice between some one who's rich because they were born and some one who got rich by good old hard yakka, then I'll pick the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
If I am to be brutally honest; neither impresses me. The world is such a changing place.
Inherited money does certainly not impress me; I loathe the concept of nobility (not nobles...) and anything similar. Of the qualities that one might measure in humans; inherited status may only give a hint of a few; if any at all.
New money might just as well mean the correct surroundings/luck rather than a unique trait of a person; only so and so many rich people may exist.
She accomplished what she did only because of her birth and marriage. She accomplished things using her fame, something she wouldn't have if she wasn't the Princess of Wales.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If she had been born as a regular human, I would never have heard of her, and neither would you.
I'm not impressed by riches one way or t' other. In my experience the old rich don't deserve their wealth and the newly rich don't know how to spend it. And it shows in both cases.
The Diana thingy made me laugh. A single mother of two who crafted an anti-landmine treaty with her own bare hands. Yeah right..
Whether it's the feckless who live & spend on other people's riches like Paris Hilton or the crazy tortured souls who rose to fame & riches ala Michael Jackson...they can have it. Makes me glad I'm just a regular person and the only ones I have to impress is myself, and loved ones. I don't measure my riches solely on what I have in my bank account.
Nothing in the poll I'm afraid, the only sort of money that deserves repect is that which is made that both profits and enriches more than the individual or company. Fair Trade had the right idea & failed.
Hmmm.... People work their *** off to be able to spend a month in the alps... Simultaneosly, I spend the whole winter in the alps.
Some others spend their life to afford a beautiful wife, well, I am the one having sex with her.
So no, money does not impress me, at all.
Only thing that counts on the death bed is who have most memories, and who had most fun :)
YOU'RE SCREWING MY WIFE!?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Probably get a warning for that :inquisitive:
John Betjeman always springs to mind at times like this, when asked if he had any regrets his reply was that "I wished I had had more sex".
.....But she walked in a mine-field in Angola!! TWICE!! How can anyone do more than that??!?!??!!!111Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
She did. She died for it. I mean, without her death the treaty wouldn't have come about in the firt place. What a woman, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Pity the treaty was practically null and void from the start. It's got more holes in it than a fragmentation mine victim.
Ever meet her?Quote:
What a woman, eh?
Brainless self obsessed patronising publicity whore:thumbsdown:
Even the wife who normally can find some redeeming trait in anyone found absolutely none in princess Di.
Once. She sent me a smile that just missed me because she had already spotted someone else with a lot more money than me. Charles is a laugh though, despite his lack of brains and presence. Or because of it, I never can tell with that man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Seeing her ain't meeting her.Quote:
She sent me a smile that just missed me because she had already spotted someone else with a lot more money than me.
So is his mother.Quote:
Charles is a laugh though
Just wondering if any of them will be at the party next week?
BTW what does English Garden Party mean as dress code?
I thought it was sunburn , beer belly , tattoos and union jack shorts:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Though I told the wife I was going for Jesus creepers and woolen socks.:2thumbsup:
There is something inherently funny about these people: it's that they exist at all. And I suspect both Charles and his Mom know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Don't talk about inherently funny when talking about Royals , thats mocking the afflicted:2thumbsup:Quote:
There is something inherently funny about these people:
Well, if you're grandfather and great-grandfather was the very same person, you'd be kinda funny too, methinks ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
and this comes from a Norwegian, the land of the inbreds...
Its irrelevant whether money is "new" or "old". What impresses me more is the ability to handle finances adeptly, making the most of what one has. If you inherited 30 million dollars and blew it all on excess and opulence and buried yourself in mountains of debt, you don't end up in any different a place if you acquired the money yourself and blew it on excess and opulence and buried yourself in mountains of debt. You end up broke and miserable.
Fixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Oops... voted before understanding the question.... :sweatdrop:
As you said, L VI, I'm impressed by great sums of money earned, since that usually makes me feel that I could achieve that too. Hehe. I'm not impressed on inherited fortunes, why should I? If anything I feel envy. Damn papa boys who know nothing and yet can do everything... <.<
Glad to see those bashing the rich for the sake of bashing the rich have actually contributed some progress with their lives like an actual working treaty without loopholes, oh wait...
Yay! Awareness of, sensitive reaction to, and simmering frustration about, the subject. (Bolding mine)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I've been googling 'till I saw blue in the face, but I can't find a recent study I was looking for. A sociologist, he set about making an inventory of social classes in France. He counted 83.
This in contrast to the UK, where they have only three. Each one commonly subdivided in three substrata.
And in far clearer contrast to Germany. A ruthless title society, whether of noble or academic achievement. (Never forget to mention the academic title of a German!) But more an authoritarian, or top-down, than class society.
And certainly in stark contrast to the US. Americans, as every European knows, don't have any class at all. ~D
Meneldil: 'the sons of lawyers/doctors I meet everyday at my university, they at least have something, and education, and attitude'
Pah. Social climbers for the most part. Medicine and law, the emancipatory studies of the non-possessing classes. (:devilish:)
~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~
I would say that maybe this all is a French thingy. It certainly is. More correctly, it is a clear Latin phenomenon. The right 'words', the right schools, exact manners - an awareness of these things. These are the instruments of strict social stratification. Within this stratification, the inherited position and fortune, of whatever modesty, always trumps the earned one of like quantity.
But I am not so sure it is not Western in general. What of the British? The 'keeping up appearances' of the middle classes? Their public schools for the upper classes - these institutes of heritable social exclusion? Persons of merit who didn't attend one will always feel a mixture of resentment and inferiority to them, and the pupils who attended. Regardless of whether they surpassed most during the course of their life.
It is not the fairness or worth of public education that fascinates me, but that those deprived of it remain impressed by it, despite any resentment they might harbour towards it.
Sticking closer to what has been discussed in this thread, to many people Bono and Bob Geldoff are mere attention-seekers when they talk of dying Africans, Diana's a saint for saying the same.
Or what of the Americans, with their Ivy League system, their socially segregated communities? In its dreams, America is strictly meritocratical. Personal achievement ought to trump inherited status. This is not what I see.
An example:
In another thread, I once suggested an American to learn French rather than Spanish. Despite the relative uselesness of French compared to Spanish in America. Precisly because of the uselesness.
Useless skills, that is, skills without a monetary value - always the hallmark of those of privelidged birth.
Command of Spanish betrays that you baked cheeseburgers at a fastfood restaurant during in your off-hours to pay for school and college. That you picked it up from your co-workers and cleaners. Command of French shows you spend your youth reading, visiting Europe, absorbing culture.
An employer will always pick the latter over the former. Despite the former having worked twice as hard to get where he is now.
That is the essence of what I mean with 'impressed by' inherited versus aquired money and position.
What I am interested in, is not so much class and wealth. (Which in retrospect would've been the more clear topic).
Rather, the fact that most people will profess to be more impressed by aquired money, whereas, in fact, society does not behave this way. Little has changed since Roman times - when it was admirable for a man to posess fortune, but by Jove, never show that you've worked for it. For nothing could be more vulgar or unimpressive.
One of the things that doesn't impress me about the wealthy is that they seem to buy expensive things just to show the price tag. Whereas all my family and friends will brag about how much they saved. Knowing someone and getting a huge discount because of this person you know is a huge achievement that is to be congratulated. Spending more than you have to, ie buying designer shoes for hundreds of dollars when you could get a pair that are just as good for $40, just proves how stupid and gullible you are.
That depends a good deal on whether these are Manolo shoes...Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
More to the point. Stupid and gullible. Is that really so?
Why does a peacock have impractical, uncannily long tailfeathers?
Why do bower birds collect little blue items to display at their nests?
Why do birds of paradise have outrageously colourful plumage?
Each behaviour is a terrible waste. Unlike designer shoes, dangerous even - predators love clumsy birds with unwieldingly long tails. Yet, these birds persist.
Why? Because it serves a purpose. It attracts mates. It...impresses people.
If you look like your parents could provide abundantly for you, then you look more probable to have inherited good genes.
Are yoiu serious? You would chose a partner because they have expensive clothes? Would you go for the short, over weight, ugly girl in designer shoes or the tall, stunning beauty in cheap supermarket shoes?
Granted, I take things to extremes, I can't remember the last time I spent more than $15 on an item of clothing and I've never paid for a haircut in my life. A ditzy, foolish girl who thinks expensive possessions are important seems less attractive to me than the rational thinking inteligent girl who knows spending huge wodges of cash on clothes is stupid.
If you had a choice between two products that were almost identical, would you pay many times more for one, simply because it was made by a famous person? I'm not talking as a collectors item, sure people collect expensive things to keep in a collection, and that is understandable, if not still a bit foolish. I mean as a functional item you will actually use.
Plus in australia, girls tend to go for construction worker types since they have more free time than high paid office workers, doctors, laywers etc
1. They look good in hats, and look great on cloaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
2. Makes good documentary.
3. They taste awful.
Not impressed by money at all
I disagree with this. Intelligence is a far better judge of genetic well being and general suitability for procreation. It is both nature and nurture and gives a rough hint on both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Paris Hilton might be rich, but is a brain dead pseudo-whore / tramp. That her parents can afford to dress this clothes horse in money isn't enough.
~:smoking: