Perhaps as we are about to enter the age of wealth redistribution, of sharing and of equalization, it is time to resurrect the old fable:
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“Why not come and chat with me, said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter, said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.
“Why bother about winter? said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present. But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.
The problem is not with the ants, the problem is how do we turn the grasshoppers into ants. Although from what I read on these pages, there are many folks out there who see ants as a greedy wealthy little bugs blocking any opportunity for grasshoppers.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1042881 wrote: Perhaps as we are about to enter the age of wealth redistribution, of sharing and of equalization, it is time to resurrect the old fable:
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“Why not come and chat with me, said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter, said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.
“Why bother about winter? said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present. But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.
The problem is not with the ants, the problem is how do we turn the grasshoppers into ants. Although from what I read on these pages, there are many folks out there who see ants as a greedy wealthy little bugs blocking any opportunity for grasshoppers.
Yes, and there are also people who percieve people who lose their jobs, or get sick as losers who should be thrown on the scrap heap as they are just undeserving of any sympathy as its obviously their own fault. The coming 2 to 3 years are going to demonstate that being unemployed is not always comment on your moral character but is often just a function of the economy you live in, hopefully people will drop the smug judgementalism when nasty things start happening to them as well, though some never do.
The moral of the story is actually to work hard and SAVE, not squander the fruits of your labour, and to invest wisely in being productive; I really wish someone could have impressed that on the priviledged smug morons on Wall Street who just blew upwards of a Trillion dollars on a credit bubble. But of course, its the governments fault for not stopping them, they couldn't help themselves, despite their fancy titles, Harvard MBAs, and complicated Jargon.
I would suggest that the working poor generally have to work much harder, much longer, for much less than their more well-heeled peers in comfortable positions; and given the way that the earnings of the poorest have been completely squeezed by the fashionable need to maximize the profits of the richer top percentile of society, then it becomes harder and harder to put anything by for a rainy day. Also, unfortunately of course if you are a young couple and have to borrow a small fortune (and be encouraged by everyone to do so) for a crappy small house so some well-connected property developer scumbag can have another gold helicopter, then its quite hard to save anything and you're about to be wiped out, and of course its your own fault for believing the nonsense.
Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.
The Ant and the Grasshopper
In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.
“Why not come and chat with me, said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter, said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.
“Why bother about winter? said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present. But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.
The problem is not with the ants, the problem is how do we turn the grasshoppers into ants. Although from what I read on these pages, there are many folks out there who see ants as a greedy wealthy little bugs blocking any opportunity for grasshoppers.
Yes, and there are also people who percieve people who lose their jobs, or get sick as losers who should be thrown on the scrap heap as they are just undeserving of any sympathy as its obviously their own fault. The coming 2 to 3 years are going to demonstate that being unemployed is not always comment on your moral character but is often just a function of the economy you live in, hopefully people will drop the smug judgementalism when nasty things start happening to them as well, though some never do.
The moral of the story is actually to work hard and SAVE, not squander the fruits of your labour, and to invest wisely in being productive; I really wish someone could have impressed that on the priviledged smug morons on Wall Street who just blew upwards of a Trillion dollars on a credit bubble. But of course, its the governments fault for not stopping them, they couldn't help themselves, despite their fancy titles, Harvard MBAs, and complicated Jargon.
I would suggest that the working poor generally have to work much harder, much longer, for much less than their more well-heeled peers in comfortable positions; and given the way that the earnings of the poorest have been completely squeezed by the fashionable need to maximize the profits of the richer top percentile of society, then it becomes harder and harder to put anything by for a rainy day. Also, unfortunately of course if you are a young couple and have to borrow a small fortune (and be encouraged by everyone to do so) for a crappy small house so some well-connected property developer scumbag can have another gold helicopter, then its quite hard to save anything and you're about to be wiped out, and of course its your own fault for believing the nonsense.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
[QUOTE=Galbally;1042904]Yes, and there are also people who percieve people who lose their jobs, or get sick as losers who should be thrown on the scrap heap as they are just undeserving of any sympathy as its obviously their own fault. The coming 2 to 3 years are going to demonstate that being unemployed is not always comment on your moral character but is often just a function of the economy you live in, hopefully people will drop the smug judgementalism when nasty things start happening to them as well, though some never do.
That is truly bogus, I know of no one, even on the far right who denies that there are people who truly need help and deserve a helping hand because of all the reasons you mention. That argument is typically thrown in the debate when any attempt is made to make a case for individual responsibility and accountability which applies to the vast majority of people. Those people are the exception not the rule.
That is truly bogus, I know of no one, even on the far right who denies that there are people who truly need help and deserve a helping hand because of all the reasons you mention. That argument is typically thrown in the debate when any attempt is made to make a case for individual responsibility and accountability which applies to the vast majority of people. Those people are the exception not the rule.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
[QUOTE=QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1042914]
That is truly bogus, I know of no one, even on the far right who denies that there are people who truly need help and deserve a helping hand because of all the reasons you mention. That argument is typically thrown in the debate when any attempt is made to make a case for individual responsibility and accountability which applies to the vast majority of people. Those people are the exception not the rule.
Quinn I am all for personal responsibility, after all I was born poor, but was brought up with the idea of working hard, educating oneself, and not squandering what you have; of course I am not saying I always did the right thing, but I look after myself and don't expect others to. So on matters of self-restraint, self-respect, self-responsibility we agree 100 percent.
What I find appalling is the completely self-serving undertone from many right-wing commentators that basically people who suggest that "perhaps our system of economic reward has become wildly scewed in the direction of speculative finance?", (and away from the basic citizens on whom the whole house of cards actually rests) are somehow closet marxists or that this is "end of capitalism as we know it" just because some slightly more realistic rules are going to have to be introduced again.
Its not the end of capitalism or self-restraint, in fact its the return of more sensible old-fashioned ideas about probity and honesty (that has to be enforced), its just a realization that society is more than just an economy, and that you can't trust banks to monitor themselves, they can't and that was always a ridiculous idea anyway.
The free-marketeers ideological dream of world markets unemcumbered on their brave mission to create wealth (for themselves mostly) unemcumbered by anything as tiresome as governments has failed, on its own terms, and because of the internal absurdities of its own logic, just like totalitariam communism did. No harm, says I, ideologies generally end up failing once the absurdities outweigh the useful ideas and insights, such is the case now.
To get back to broad political ideas; I think that these arguments about "spreading the wealth" being a manifesto for "Socialism" are equally as bogus and frankly laughable, a woman asked Joe Biden if Obama was a Marxist on national TV the other day, in all seriousness, how do you even respond to that utter rubbish? A redistributive tax policy that seeks to make sure than people on middle and lower incomes get more of the national wealth pie is not socialism, its giving people what they have earned, its all about how you assign value to people's labour and capital.
The wealth of my country does not come from the stock exchange, or investment banks, it comes from the productive labour and enterprise of the millions of individual Irish people who get up every morning and work for a living either for others or themselves. Those financial institutions (such as banks and insurers) are there to facilitate the creation of wealth, not to become the end in themselves. They seem to have forgotten that as they were given so much power and liscence, now some of that power and liscence is going to be taken back from them, its completely their own fault, not the fault of the average sucker.
I respect the idea of giving indivduals as much economic, political, and religious liberty as possible (which also means making sure that their interests are not undermined by rapacious business practices BTW). However, I am also concious of the fact that I am priviledged to live in a society and country that gives me the opportunity
1). to live above subsistence level;
2). to get ahead, and
3). also provides some help if things go wrong.
I also realize that without society being there, I would be looking for berries in the bushes like everyone else, (regardless of their high opinions of themselves). Maybe some people prefer a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I don't frankly.
You are part of a collective effort, any one who thinks that not the case is delusional, Civilization is a totally collective enterprise, not an individual one, by definition people who don't like it can change it or opt out. We are lucky because our civilization is based on giving each individual member as much latitude of action is practically and morally possible, and long may it continue, but its not an absolute right, no more than anything else is.
That not only do I have a responsibility to myself to look after myself more or less, within the system I have to live; I also have a duty to pay into the society that I come from and live in, and not just in monetary terms, no one likes paying taxes, but then I also don't like getting ripped off by mendacious businessmen, and at least politicans are directly accountable to someone.
I also like the idea that the government trys to minimize the effects of social darwinism by ideological capitalism on our society, which is made up of families and people, not units of economic production. We tend to see the government as something that protects us from business, you tend to see it the other way around, thats the difference, and of course vive la difference as they say in Paris.
That is truly bogus, I know of no one, even on the far right who denies that there are people who truly need help and deserve a helping hand because of all the reasons you mention. That argument is typically thrown in the debate when any attempt is made to make a case for individual responsibility and accountability which applies to the vast majority of people. Those people are the exception not the rule.
Quinn I am all for personal responsibility, after all I was born poor, but was brought up with the idea of working hard, educating oneself, and not squandering what you have; of course I am not saying I always did the right thing, but I look after myself and don't expect others to. So on matters of self-restraint, self-respect, self-responsibility we agree 100 percent.
What I find appalling is the completely self-serving undertone from many right-wing commentators that basically people who suggest that "perhaps our system of economic reward has become wildly scewed in the direction of speculative finance?", (and away from the basic citizens on whom the whole house of cards actually rests) are somehow closet marxists or that this is "end of capitalism as we know it" just because some slightly more realistic rules are going to have to be introduced again.
Its not the end of capitalism or self-restraint, in fact its the return of more sensible old-fashioned ideas about probity and honesty (that has to be enforced), its just a realization that society is more than just an economy, and that you can't trust banks to monitor themselves, they can't and that was always a ridiculous idea anyway.
The free-marketeers ideological dream of world markets unemcumbered on their brave mission to create wealth (for themselves mostly) unemcumbered by anything as tiresome as governments has failed, on its own terms, and because of the internal absurdities of its own logic, just like totalitariam communism did. No harm, says I, ideologies generally end up failing once the absurdities outweigh the useful ideas and insights, such is the case now.
To get back to broad political ideas; I think that these arguments about "spreading the wealth" being a manifesto for "Socialism" are equally as bogus and frankly laughable, a woman asked Joe Biden if Obama was a Marxist on national TV the other day, in all seriousness, how do you even respond to that utter rubbish? A redistributive tax policy that seeks to make sure than people on middle and lower incomes get more of the national wealth pie is not socialism, its giving people what they have earned, its all about how you assign value to people's labour and capital.
The wealth of my country does not come from the stock exchange, or investment banks, it comes from the productive labour and enterprise of the millions of individual Irish people who get up every morning and work for a living either for others or themselves. Those financial institutions (such as banks and insurers) are there to facilitate the creation of wealth, not to become the end in themselves. They seem to have forgotten that as they were given so much power and liscence, now some of that power and liscence is going to be taken back from them, its completely their own fault, not the fault of the average sucker.
I respect the idea of giving indivduals as much economic, political, and religious liberty as possible (which also means making sure that their interests are not undermined by rapacious business practices BTW). However, I am also concious of the fact that I am priviledged to live in a society and country that gives me the opportunity
1). to live above subsistence level;
2). to get ahead, and
3). also provides some help if things go wrong.
I also realize that without society being there, I would be looking for berries in the bushes like everyone else, (regardless of their high opinions of themselves). Maybe some people prefer a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I don't frankly.
You are part of a collective effort, any one who thinks that not the case is delusional, Civilization is a totally collective enterprise, not an individual one, by definition people who don't like it can change it or opt out. We are lucky because our civilization is based on giving each individual member as much latitude of action is practically and morally possible, and long may it continue, but its not an absolute right, no more than anything else is.
That not only do I have a responsibility to myself to look after myself more or less, within the system I have to live; I also have a duty to pay into the society that I come from and live in, and not just in monetary terms, no one likes paying taxes, but then I also don't like getting ripped off by mendacious businessmen, and at least politicans are directly accountable to someone.
I also like the idea that the government trys to minimize the effects of social darwinism by ideological capitalism on our society, which is made up of families and people, not units of economic production. We tend to see the government as something that protects us from business, you tend to see it the other way around, thats the difference, and of course vive la difference as they say in Paris.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Galbally;1042904 wrote: Yes, and there are also people who percieve people who lose their jobs, or get sick as losers who should be thrown on the scrap heap as they are just undeserving of any sympathy as its obviously their own fault. The coming 2 to 3 years are going to demonstate that being unemployed is not always comment on your moral character but is often just a function of the economy you live in, hopefully people will drop the smug judgementalism when nasty things start happening to them as well, though some never do.
The moral of the story is actually to work hard and SAVE, not squander the fruits of your labour, and to invest wisely in being productive; I really wish someone could have impressed that on the priviledged smug morons on Wall Street who just blew upwards of a Trillion dollars on a credit bubble. But of course, its the governments fault for not stopping them, they couldn't help themselves, despite their fancy titles, Harvard MBAs, and complicated Jargon.
I would suggest that the working poor generally have to work much harder, much longer, for much less than their more well-heeled peers in comfortable positions; and given the way that the earnings of the poorest have been completely squeezed by the fashionable need to maximize the profits of the richer top percentile of society, then it becomes harder and harder to put anything by for a rainy day. Also, unfortunately of course if you are a young couple and have to borrow a small fortune (and be encouraged by everyone to do so) for a crappy small house so some well-connected property developer scumbag can have another gold helicopter, then its quite hard to save anything and you're about to be wiped out, and of course its your own fault for believing the nonsense.
Actually, it is not the ‘poor’ that are the most affected by the situation with the stock brokers, it is the middle class. Government housing is still available for the ‘poor’ as is medical cards and welfare. It is the hard working middle class that have lost their retirement funds, are being taxed more, and are worried everyday about losing their jobs.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
The moral of the story is actually to work hard and SAVE, not squander the fruits of your labour, and to invest wisely in being productive; I really wish someone could have impressed that on the priviledged smug morons on Wall Street who just blew upwards of a Trillion dollars on a credit bubble. But of course, its the governments fault for not stopping them, they couldn't help themselves, despite their fancy titles, Harvard MBAs, and complicated Jargon.
I would suggest that the working poor generally have to work much harder, much longer, for much less than their more well-heeled peers in comfortable positions; and given the way that the earnings of the poorest have been completely squeezed by the fashionable need to maximize the profits of the richer top percentile of society, then it becomes harder and harder to put anything by for a rainy day. Also, unfortunately of course if you are a young couple and have to borrow a small fortune (and be encouraged by everyone to do so) for a crappy small house so some well-connected property developer scumbag can have another gold helicopter, then its quite hard to save anything and you're about to be wiped out, and of course its your own fault for believing the nonsense.
Actually, it is not the ‘poor’ that are the most affected by the situation with the stock brokers, it is the middle class. Government housing is still available for the ‘poor’ as is medical cards and welfare. It is the hard working middle class that have lost their retirement funds, are being taxed more, and are worried everyday about losing their jobs.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
When I saw the title, 6th century BC, I thought of Croesus-reknowned for his wealth and the first standardized currency system. Look where we are not that far down the timeline.............................
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043009 wrote: Actually, it is not the ‘poor’ that are the most affected by the situation with the stock brokers, it is the middle class. Government housing is still available for the ‘poor’ as is medical cards and welfare. It is the hard working middle class that have lost their retirement funds, are being taxed more, and are worried everyday about losing their jobs.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
When I bought a house in 1987 at the peak of the market it was ten years before it was worth what I paid or I had sufficient equity to remortgage and get a better rate, but I bet no one remembers those days. This too shall pass, but the difference is that many people simply bought what they could not afford and now are unable to ride out the storm. The bankers got caught not so much from greed as from imprudence in not know what they were truly investing in or how risky it was and the inflated credit rating of those securities didn't help.
At the same time we began an economic downturn now being accelerated by the credit crunch and rippling to all segments of the economy, peole are losing their jobs which makes the mortgage issue that much worse.
As I have said before, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news if you want to call it that, is that home prices will be more reasonable for a few years, buying opportunities will abound in the stock market and the paper losses in pension funds and 401(k) plans will be recovered in a few years.
But much of this depends on what the government does and right now it looks like we are headed in the wrong direction, while we need to let the markets work this out, artificial underpinning by the government may very well make the trouble last longer.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
When I bought a house in 1987 at the peak of the market it was ten years before it was worth what I paid or I had sufficient equity to remortgage and get a better rate, but I bet no one remembers those days. This too shall pass, but the difference is that many people simply bought what they could not afford and now are unable to ride out the storm. The bankers got caught not so much from greed as from imprudence in not know what they were truly investing in or how risky it was and the inflated credit rating of those securities didn't help.
At the same time we began an economic downturn now being accelerated by the credit crunch and rippling to all segments of the economy, peole are losing their jobs which makes the mortgage issue that much worse.
As I have said before, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news if you want to call it that, is that home prices will be more reasonable for a few years, buying opportunities will abound in the stock market and the paper losses in pension funds and 401(k) plans will be recovered in a few years.
But much of this depends on what the government does and right now it looks like we are headed in the wrong direction, while we need to let the markets work this out, artificial underpinning by the government may very well make the trouble last longer.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
chonsigirl;1043015 wrote: When I saw the title, 6th century BC, I thought of Croesus-reknowned for his wealth and the first standardized currency system. Look where we are not that far down the timeline.............................
Chonsi, you're a gem, you really are. But do you really think people with Quinn's outlook are prepared to find a lesson in what Herodotus tells of that story? Yes it's central to the discussion but no, he's not going to listen to it.
Would you like to tell it or shall I?
Chonsi, you're a gem, you really are. But do you really think people with Quinn's outlook are prepared to find a lesson in what Herodotus tells of that story? Yes it's central to the discussion but no, he's not going to listen to it.
Would you like to tell it or shall I?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Oh, please do tell it, spot. It definitely relates to Quinn's thread. (and there is nothing better than Herodotus) 
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Quinn really mistakes what socialism is interested in. Socialism recognizes that individuals face risks which no amount of planning can avoid. Some can make do, some are never equipped to even do that. Socialism says that we can all survive with dignity if we all adhere to a social contract in which none are left to destitution regardless of the reason they might approach it. Some are incapable of ant-like acquisition through the good months irrespective of the potential harvest surrounding them. More to the point, some of the ants will crash and burn even though they set aside for the winter. Both groups need protection.
The lessons from Sixth Century BC are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to Solon, born 638 BC and died 558 BC. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for Athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no Athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was Croesus in Sardis, the capital of Lydia, a province of Turkey inland from where Troy stood.
After a few days Croesus had his servants take Solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which Croesus asked him - I've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "Solon, I've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
And Solon tells him yes, and Croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but Solon says he was a chap called Tellos the Athenian. And when Croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, Solon tells him that Tellos lived while his native State was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: for when a battle was fought by the Athenians at Eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the Athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
Croesus had a second shot at it. Who might Solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told Cleobis and Biton. They were Argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The Gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the Argives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The Argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at Delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - Croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And Solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, I have no answer until I hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later Croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other Lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what Solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the Great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, Croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets Croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century BC. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
The lessons from Sixth Century BC are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to Solon, born 638 BC and died 558 BC. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for Athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no Athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was Croesus in Sardis, the capital of Lydia, a province of Turkey inland from where Troy stood.
After a few days Croesus had his servants take Solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which Croesus asked him - I've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "Solon, I've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
And Solon tells him yes, and Croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but Solon says he was a chap called Tellos the Athenian. And when Croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, Solon tells him that Tellos lived while his native State was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: for when a battle was fought by the Athenians at Eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the Athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
Croesus had a second shot at it. Who might Solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told Cleobis and Biton. They were Argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The Gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the Argives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The Argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at Delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - Croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And Solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, I have no answer until I hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later Croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other Lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what Solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the Great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, Croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets Croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century BC. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043009 wrote: Actually, it is not the ‘poor’ that are the most affected by the situation with the stock brokers, it is the middle class. Government housing is still available for the ‘poor’ as is medical cards and welfare. It is the hard working middle class that have lost their retirement funds, are being taxed more, and are worried everyday about losing their jobs.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
Milkennie, I was really referring to America more than Ireland, though our poverty rates are almost as bad and we share the Anglo American economic culture (with a dose of Catholic social democracy, which have dicthed in the last 10 years of course).
Also I would make the point for our own case, that most of what was supposed to be the new Irish "middle class" is about to become the working poor again, and they are the lucky ones. Just watch. Also I completely agree that the middle class are getting hammered now with little help from government (unless of course they lose their jobs, which they will, en masse). As you know though, if you earn even a modest salary you are basically screwed for everything; even the Brits have a universal healthcare system, which is something we have never managed, even when we were awash with cash, it would be something really useful for struggling working families.
I sincerely hope that Irish society is able to respond collectively to whats going to happen over the next couple of years, because responses based on individualism won't work. At the moment all I see, is sectional interests trying to get theirs, while the pubic sector seems intent on claiming the latest PPS pay rises, which is a bad idea, we should be cutting public sector wages while trying to keep as many of them in work as possible. It won't happen of course, but the alternative is going to be massive lay offs in that sector as well, and some ever-decreasing economic circles for the next few years.
I don’t agree that it is the injured, sick or those made redundant that are looked down in, I think that that is a very broad and unfair statement.
and yes, the bankers and brokers acted in greed and were wrong with the gambles they took and should be held accountable.
Milkennie, I was really referring to America more than Ireland, though our poverty rates are almost as bad and we share the Anglo American economic culture (with a dose of Catholic social democracy, which have dicthed in the last 10 years of course).
Also I would make the point for our own case, that most of what was supposed to be the new Irish "middle class" is about to become the working poor again, and they are the lucky ones. Just watch. Also I completely agree that the middle class are getting hammered now with little help from government (unless of course they lose their jobs, which they will, en masse). As you know though, if you earn even a modest salary you are basically screwed for everything; even the Brits have a universal healthcare system, which is something we have never managed, even when we were awash with cash, it would be something really useful for struggling working families.
I sincerely hope that Irish society is able to respond collectively to whats going to happen over the next couple of years, because responses based on individualism won't work. At the moment all I see, is sectional interests trying to get theirs, while the pubic sector seems intent on claiming the latest PPS pay rises, which is a bad idea, we should be cutting public sector wages while trying to keep as many of them in work as possible. It won't happen of course, but the alternative is going to be massive lay offs in that sector as well, and some ever-decreasing economic circles for the next few years.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
spot;1043208 wrote: quinn really mistakes what socialism is interested in. Socialism recognizes that individuals face risks which no amount of planning can avoid. Some can make do, some are never equipped to even do that. Socialism says that we can all survive with dignity if we all adhere to a social contract in which none are left to destitution regardless of the reason they might approach it. Some are incapable of ant-like acquisition through the good months irrespective of the potential harvest surrounding them. More to the point, some of the ants will crash and burn even though they set aside for the winter. Both groups need protection.
The lessons from sixth century bc are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to solon, born 638 bc and died 558 bc. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was croesus in sardis, the capital of lydia, a province of turkey inland from where troy stood.
After a few days croesus had his servants take solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which croesus asked him - i've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "solon, i've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
and solon tells him yes, and croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but solon says he was a chap called tellos the athenian. And when croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, solon tells him that tellos lived while his native state was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: For when a battle was fought by the athenians at eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
croesus had a second shot at it. Who might solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told cleobis and biton. They were argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the arvives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, i have no answer until i hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century bc. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
bravo sir! :-6
The lessons from sixth century bc are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to solon, born 638 bc and died 558 bc. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was croesus in sardis, the capital of lydia, a province of turkey inland from where troy stood.
After a few days croesus had his servants take solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which croesus asked him - i've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "solon, i've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
and solon tells him yes, and croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but solon says he was a chap called tellos the athenian. And when croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, solon tells him that tellos lived while his native state was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: For when a battle was fought by the athenians at eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
croesus had a second shot at it. Who might solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told cleobis and biton. They were argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the arvives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, i have no answer until i hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century bc. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
bravo sir! :-6
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
I really enjoyed that, thanks
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043245 wrote: I really enjoyed that, thanks
Of course you are referring to spots wonderful post there.
I was thinking I'd like to know what you think at this stage of where Ireland is at, I have to say myself that I think we are in desperate, desperate trouble at the moment, and I would be quite worried about the next couple of years for Ireland, ecomonically and politically. I really wish we had said yes to Lisbon in the summer as it would take some of the problems away, anyway, that wasn't to be and we are where we are. Anyway, I better get myself to bed, talk to you again.
Of course you are referring to spots wonderful post there.
I was thinking I'd like to know what you think at this stage of where Ireland is at, I have to say myself that I think we are in desperate, desperate trouble at the moment, and I would be quite worried about the next couple of years for Ireland, ecomonically and politically. I really wish we had said yes to Lisbon in the summer as it would take some of the problems away, anyway, that wasn't to be and we are where we are. Anyway, I better get myself to bed, talk to you again.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Bravo, spot!
An excellent lesson from the ancients, and I quite enjoyed your retelling of the tale!
An excellent lesson from the ancients, and I quite enjoyed your retelling of the tale!
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
spot;1043208 wrote: Quinn really mistakes what socialism is interested in. Socialism recognizes that individuals face risks which no amount of planning can avoid. Some can make do, some are never equipped to even do that. Socialism says that we can all survive with dignity if we all adhere to a social contract in which none are left to destitution regardless of the reason they might approach it. Some are incapable of ant-like acquisition through the good months irrespective of the potential harvest surrounding them. More to the point, some of the ants will crash and burn even though they set aside for the winter. Both groups need protection.
The lessons from Sixth Century BC are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to Solon, born 638 BC and died 558 BC. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for Athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no Athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was Croesus in Sardis, the capital of Lydia, a province of Turkey inland from where Troy stood.
After a few days Croesus had his servants take Solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which Croesus asked him - I've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "Solon, I've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
And Solon tells him yes, and Croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but Solon says he was a chap called Tellos the Athenian. And when Croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, Solon tells him that Tellos lived while his native State was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: for when a battle was fought by the Athenians at Eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the Athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
Croesus had a second shot at it. Who might Solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told Cleobis and Biton. They were Argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The Gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the Argives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The Argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at Delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - Croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And Solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, I have no answer until I hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later Croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other Lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what Solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the Great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, Croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets Croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century BC. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
And the point is?
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
The lessons from Sixth Century BC are a perfect demonstration of this, just as chonsi said.
First you need an introduction to Solon, born 638 BC and died 558 BC. He was a poet and legislator. After passing a set of laws for Athens he left to travel abroad for ten years in order that no Athenian could persuade him to alter his law code.
He talked with other rulers during his travels. Among them was Croesus in Sardis, the capital of Lydia, a province of Turkey inland from where Troy stood.
After a few days Croesus had his servants take Solon to see his treasuries "and they showed him all things, how great and magnificent they were", after which Croesus asked him - I've always imagined a bunch of courtiers within earshot at this point - "Solon, I've heard a lot about your wisdom and your travels. Have you met anyone you'd consider the happiest?"
And Solon tells him yes, and Croesus grins expecting the answer he wants, but Solon says he was a chap called Tellos the Athenian. And when Croesus swallows his disappointment and asks why, Solon tells him that Tellos lived while his native State was prosperous, had sons fair and good, saw from all of them children born who lived to grow to adulthood, that he had comparative wealth, and "after his life a most glorious end: for when a battle was fought by the Athenians at Eleusis against the neighbouring people, he brought up supports and routed the foe and there died by a most fair death; and the Athenians buried him publicly where he fell, and honoured him greatly."
Croesus had a second shot at it. Who might Solon have met to place second to this most fortunate of men? He was told Cleobis and Biton. They were Argives, possessed a sufficiency of wealth and bodies to die for. There was a feast and their mother needed taking to the temple. There being no oxen to hand, the pair of lads yoked themselves to the carriage and pulled it themselves five miles to the temple. The Gods were so pleased that, after the service and the feasting and the praise of all the Argives and their own mother, when the the lads slept in the temple they never awoke. The Argives made statues of them and dedicated them as offerings at Delphi because they were so excellent.
And - to get to the point - Croesus is livid. What's my happiness then, so utterly set so low by you, that you can't even put me on a level with those commoners. And Solon tells him. A long life shows a man lots he would rather not experience. Say you live seventy years, that's twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days and every one of them will be different to the others. What you'll meet is wholly accidental. I can see you're wonderfully wealthy and lord of many nations but, as far as what you ask, I have no answer until I hear you've died happily. Someone with huge riches is no nearer happiness than someone with enough to satisfy his daily needs unless he happens to have the good luck to keep those things until he dies. Many of the wealthiest men have been unlucky, many men of moderate means have had excellent luck. The wealthiest can do whatever he wants and fend off a certain amount of calamity but the other is whole of limb, healthy, free from misfortune, happy in his children and good looking on top of all that. If he can manage a good end to his life as well then he can rightly be called happy, but until he's dead the best you can call him is fortunate. Often enough someone with a gleam of happiness is plunged into ruin.
Would you like to know the end of the tale too? Years later Croesus is in fetters, tied to a pyre with fourteen other Lydian captives. He suddenly remembers what Solon had told him and he gives a groan. Cyrus the Great, who had destroyed his armies and captured him, asks what he'd remembered and eventually, after not wanting to say, Croesus tells him. Cyrus is so horrified by the truth of it that he lets Croesus free from the pyre and keeps him as a guest at court, to remind himself how unpredictable life can be.
Here endeth the real lesson from the sixth century BC. I'll tell you something else, telling these stories in your own voice takes a lot of doing.
And the point is?
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1043449 wrote: And the point is?
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
It's not a post about happiness, it's a post about risk which affects ants and grasshoppers equally. You painted a risk-free world in your opening post, in which destitution is a consequence of indolence. Herodotus makes the case against such a simplistic equation.
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
It's not a post about happiness, it's a post about risk which affects ants and grasshoppers equally. You painted a risk-free world in your opening post, in which destitution is a consequence of indolence. Herodotus makes the case against such a simplistic equation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Galbally;1043267 wrote: Of course you are referring to spots wonderful post there.
I was thinking I'd like to know what you think at this stage of where Ireland is at, I have to say myself that I think we are in desperate, desperate trouble at the moment, and I would be quite worried about the next couple of years for Ireland, ecomonically and politically. I really wish we had said yes to Lisbon in the summer as it would take some of the problems away, anyway, that wasn't to be and we are where we are. Anyway, I better get myself to bed, talk to you again.
Good question, the answer is I don’t really know, I like to be an optimist but with the current financial situation I think that many US companies will start pulling back and as you now Ireland has many many jobs working f or US multinationals based in Ireland.
What we still have to our advantage is the tax rate which is still attractive. However, I would like to see the Greens break the coalition and a general election be held, I have always support Fiann Fail but I no longer feel they can lead this country. We need an election.
It amazes me that after the budget the excuse the government gave on the medical card issue was that ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people....’
After the failure of the Lisbon Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
After the failure of the Nice Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
They have lost touch with the Irish and need to have some time in the opposition to get back in touch.
We have challenging years ahead of us.
I was thinking I'd like to know what you think at this stage of where Ireland is at, I have to say myself that I think we are in desperate, desperate trouble at the moment, and I would be quite worried about the next couple of years for Ireland, ecomonically and politically. I really wish we had said yes to Lisbon in the summer as it would take some of the problems away, anyway, that wasn't to be and we are where we are. Anyway, I better get myself to bed, talk to you again.
Good question, the answer is I don’t really know, I like to be an optimist but with the current financial situation I think that many US companies will start pulling back and as you now Ireland has many many jobs working f or US multinationals based in Ireland.
What we still have to our advantage is the tax rate which is still attractive. However, I would like to see the Greens break the coalition and a general election be held, I have always support Fiann Fail but I no longer feel they can lead this country. We need an election.
It amazes me that after the budget the excuse the government gave on the medical card issue was that ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people....’
After the failure of the Lisbon Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
After the failure of the Nice Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
They have lost touch with the Irish and need to have some time in the opposition to get back in touch.
We have challenging years ahead of us.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043561 wrote: Good question, the answer is I don’t really know, I like to be an optimist but with the current financial situation I think that many US companies will start pulling back and as you now Ireland has many many jobs working f or US multinationals based in Ireland.
What we still have to our advantage is the tax rate which is still attractive. However, I would like to see the Greens break the coalition and a general election be held, I have always support Fiann Fail but I no longer feel they can lead this country. We need an election.
It amazes me that after the budget the excuse the government gave on the medical card issue was that ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people....’
After the failure of the Lisbon Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
After the failure of the Nice Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
They have lost touch with the Irish and need to have some time in the opposition to get back in touch.
We have challenging years ahead of us.
I certainly agree with you about the government, it has run its course, though of course it was elected in very recently, which I was quite depressed about at the time. I actually think Fianna Fail need to get a thrashing in the next election as their culture of cronyism has been one of the main reasons why things got so out of hand, it goes all the way back to Haughy in the 70s and the corruption, its one of the reasons why all of our institutions failed to stop what has been going on for so long. That kind of far too cosy relationship with developers, business people, and bankers has resulted in some very deeply ingrained problems within the fabric of our State that are going to be hard to turn around.
It depends on what happens politically, the Greens have missed an opportunity alright; a miscalculation. I don't see the government making it through the next 12 months anyway. It all depends on the results of the next election, if there is massive mandate for the other main party then they may be able to take on the issues, but we will probably end up with another minority government. My own view is that it may eventually be necessary to have a Government of National Unity because the next government is going to have to bring in things that people will not like, but there has to be more acceptance of how bad it is within the general population, and thats not fully sunk in yet. Fine Gael may not want to entertain that kind of arrangement, but if they were a majority party they might. Lisbon should be run again next year, and the Government should make it a referendum on EU membership, because thats what the stakes are in the long term, I have no doubt on that one, if the referendum fails the government should resign.
As you said, they completely failed in the last attempt to impress upon people what was going on, and couldn't understand the vote, my view is that it was a comment on the government itself, which people don't believe any more, along with banks, regulators, etc etc. People have very little confidence in our public institutions now as they have been so compromised by mendacity and by keeping the gravy train going. That doesn't bode well for the country, as we have some hard times coming and we need to have some confidence that our state is up to it.
What we still have to our advantage is the tax rate which is still attractive. However, I would like to see the Greens break the coalition and a general election be held, I have always support Fiann Fail but I no longer feel they can lead this country. We need an election.
It amazes me that after the budget the excuse the government gave on the medical card issue was that ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people....’
After the failure of the Lisbon Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
After the failure of the Nice Treaty they said: ‘we failed in explaining to the Irish people..’
They have lost touch with the Irish and need to have some time in the opposition to get back in touch.
We have challenging years ahead of us.
I certainly agree with you about the government, it has run its course, though of course it was elected in very recently, which I was quite depressed about at the time. I actually think Fianna Fail need to get a thrashing in the next election as their culture of cronyism has been one of the main reasons why things got so out of hand, it goes all the way back to Haughy in the 70s and the corruption, its one of the reasons why all of our institutions failed to stop what has been going on for so long. That kind of far too cosy relationship with developers, business people, and bankers has resulted in some very deeply ingrained problems within the fabric of our State that are going to be hard to turn around.
It depends on what happens politically, the Greens have missed an opportunity alright; a miscalculation. I don't see the government making it through the next 12 months anyway. It all depends on the results of the next election, if there is massive mandate for the other main party then they may be able to take on the issues, but we will probably end up with another minority government. My own view is that it may eventually be necessary to have a Government of National Unity because the next government is going to have to bring in things that people will not like, but there has to be more acceptance of how bad it is within the general population, and thats not fully sunk in yet. Fine Gael may not want to entertain that kind of arrangement, but if they were a majority party they might. Lisbon should be run again next year, and the Government should make it a referendum on EU membership, because thats what the stakes are in the long term, I have no doubt on that one, if the referendum fails the government should resign.
As you said, they completely failed in the last attempt to impress upon people what was going on, and couldn't understand the vote, my view is that it was a comment on the government itself, which people don't believe any more, along with banks, regulators, etc etc. People have very little confidence in our public institutions now as they have been so compromised by mendacity and by keeping the gravy train going. That doesn't bode well for the country, as we have some hard times coming and we need to have some confidence that our state is up to it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1043076 wrote: When I bought a house in 1987 at the peak of the market it was ten years before it was worth what I paid or I had sufficient equity to remortgage and get a better rate, but I bet no one remembers those days. This too shall pass, but the difference is that many people simply bought what they could not afford and now are unable to ride out the storm. The bankers got caught not so much from greed as from imprudence in not know what they were truly investing in or how risky it was and the inflated credit rating of those securities didn't help.
At the same time we began an economic downturn now being accelerated by the credit crunch and rippling to all segments of the economy, peole are losing their jobs which makes the mortgage issue that much worse.
As I have said before, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news if you want to call it that, is that home prices will be more reasonable for a few years, buying opportunities will abound in the stock market and the paper losses in pension funds and 401(k) plans will be recovered in a few years.
But much of this depends on what the government does and right now it looks like we are headed in the wrong direction, while we need to let the markets work this out, artificial underpinning by the government may very well make the trouble last longer.
That's, on the face of it, quite telling -why on earth would you pay more for a house than it was worth? Had you done the same in 1997 your house your house would now not be worth what you had paid for it but worth far less. You wouldn't be able to re-mortgage for a better rate because you are in negative equity. If you also lost your job because of the down turn-which is looking to be far worse than in the eighties you would be heading for bankruptcy. You were lucky you got away with it.
I also bought my first flat around the same time. I was able at that time get a 100% mortgage-there was no way I would be able to borrow more than a property was valued at and definitely no way I would pay over the odds. This was at the height of the property boom in 80's london when property was selling for silly money and people were eagerly paying over the odds in the expectation prices would always rise. The most I could borrow was three times salary and the interest rate was 13%. Many advocated borrowing to the max and buying the biggest property you could afford.
posted by quinns cmmentary
And the point is?
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
What if on your way to wealth and happiness something happened-a car accident puts you in a wheelchair, or you just slip on an icy step and break your back.
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
At the same time we began an economic downturn now being accelerated by the credit crunch and rippling to all segments of the economy, peole are losing their jobs which makes the mortgage issue that much worse.
As I have said before, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The good news if you want to call it that, is that home prices will be more reasonable for a few years, buying opportunities will abound in the stock market and the paper losses in pension funds and 401(k) plans will be recovered in a few years.
But much of this depends on what the government does and right now it looks like we are headed in the wrong direction, while we need to let the markets work this out, artificial underpinning by the government may very well make the trouble last longer.
That's, on the face of it, quite telling -why on earth would you pay more for a house than it was worth? Had you done the same in 1997 your house your house would now not be worth what you had paid for it but worth far less. You wouldn't be able to re-mortgage for a better rate because you are in negative equity. If you also lost your job because of the down turn-which is looking to be far worse than in the eighties you would be heading for bankruptcy. You were lucky you got away with it.
I also bought my first flat around the same time. I was able at that time get a 100% mortgage-there was no way I would be able to borrow more than a property was valued at and definitely no way I would pay over the odds. This was at the height of the property boom in 80's london when property was selling for silly money and people were eagerly paying over the odds in the expectation prices would always rise. The most I could borrow was three times salary and the interest rate was 13%. Many advocated borrowing to the max and buying the biggest property you could afford.
posted by quinns cmmentary
And the point is?
Who has implied that the value of life is in wealth or that a person who sees the value in the ants is equating that with wealth? We are not talking about wealth as the source of happiness or even a worthy goal unto it self, we are talking about human beings maximizing their potential and accepting responsibility for their own state. I have no doubt that many average people are happier then many very wealthy people, so be it.
What if on your way to wealth and happiness something happened-a car accident puts you in a wheelchair, or you just slip on an icy step and break your back.
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
gmc;1043737 wrote:
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
People always grab the extremes to make a point. The fact is that this is not what normally happens to people.
Recessions and even more, depressions, are not fun.
This is not about poor bashing, or wanting to kick people while they are down. It is that those who succeed, for whatever reason, and however you define success, should not be held accountable for those who have experience bad luck, fate, whatever you want to call it.
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
People always grab the extremes to make a point. The fact is that this is not what normally happens to people.
Recessions and even more, depressions, are not fun.
This is not about poor bashing, or wanting to kick people while they are down. It is that those who succeed, for whatever reason, and however you define success, should not be held accountable for those who have experience bad luck, fate, whatever you want to call it.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043750 wrote: People always grab the extremes to make a point. The fact is that this is not what normally happens to people.
Recessions and even more, depressions, are not fun.
This is not about poor bashing, or wanting to kick people while they are down. It is that those who succeed, for whatever reason, and however you define success, should not be held accountable for those who have experience bad luck, fate, whatever you want to call it.
Of course people use extremes to make a point. doesn't make the point less valid. While I was down in london I met many down there who really did think that the unemployed were that way from choice. In London and the South east that was certainly the case. On one occasion three staff were laid off. They all had jobs by the following week- long term unemployed down there were a bunch of layabouts. It was a bit different if you lived in an area where the percentage unemployment was in double figures and you have sweet FA chance of getting a job locally. I was unemployed for the better part of two years and believe me it wasn't for the lack of trying. That was in the late seventies.You'll forgive me if I feel like belting anyone that believes that most of the people who are unemployed actually want to be. and yes I still hate thatcher.
Who is suggesting that those who succeed be held accountable for those who have not-for whatever reason?
Recessions and even more, depressions, are not fun.
This is not about poor bashing, or wanting to kick people while they are down. It is that those who succeed, for whatever reason, and however you define success, should not be held accountable for those who have experience bad luck, fate, whatever you want to call it.
Of course people use extremes to make a point. doesn't make the point less valid. While I was down in london I met many down there who really did think that the unemployed were that way from choice. In London and the South east that was certainly the case. On one occasion three staff were laid off. They all had jobs by the following week- long term unemployed down there were a bunch of layabouts. It was a bit different if you lived in an area where the percentage unemployment was in double figures and you have sweet FA chance of getting a job locally. I was unemployed for the better part of two years and believe me it wasn't for the lack of trying. That was in the late seventies.You'll forgive me if I feel like belting anyone that believes that most of the people who are unemployed actually want to be. and yes I still hate thatcher.
Who is suggesting that those who succeed be held accountable for those who have not-for whatever reason?
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
gmc;1043791 wrote:
Who is suggesting that those who succeed be held accountable for those who have not-for whatever reason?
This thread is a spill over from 'redistribution of wealth'. my comment was part of the whole topic not in reply to a specific thread.
Unemployeed etc:
been there myself, mid 80's, was so broke once I had to live in the back of a store I was working for three week or otherwise would have been homeless. Employer did not know, (I think). Showered at the YMCA each morning. (well a couple of times a week anyway).
That was when I realized that it wasn’t 'one for all and all for one', and the teachings from the 60’s/70’s of ‘live for today’ was a bunch of bull and if I was going to survive that I needed to get focused on what I wanted and work my ass off.
I have never looked back, or slowed down.
Who is suggesting that those who succeed be held accountable for those who have not-for whatever reason?
This thread is a spill over from 'redistribution of wealth'. my comment was part of the whole topic not in reply to a specific thread.
Unemployeed etc:
been there myself, mid 80's, was so broke once I had to live in the back of a store I was working for three week or otherwise would have been homeless. Employer did not know, (I think). Showered at the YMCA each morning. (well a couple of times a week anyway).
That was when I realized that it wasn’t 'one for all and all for one', and the teachings from the 60’s/70’s of ‘live for today’ was a bunch of bull and if I was going to survive that I needed to get focused on what I wanted and work my ass off.
I have never looked back, or slowed down.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
mikeinie;1043816 wrote: This thread is a spill over from 'redistribution of wealth'. my comment was part of the whole topic not in reply to a specific thread.
Unemployeed etc:
been there myself, mid 80's, was so broke once I had to live in the back of a store I was working for three week or otherwise would have been homeless. Employer did not know, (I think). Showered at the YMCA each morning. (well a couple of times a week anyway).
That was when I realized that it wasn’t 'one for all and all for one', and the teachings from the 60’s/70’s of ‘live for today’ was a bunch of bull and if I was going to survive that I needed to get focused on what I wanted and work my ass off.
I have never looked back, or slowed down.
Never fell for that crap. Dropping out was only ever an option if you had someone-usually wealthy parents to bail you out financially of things got too tough. Everybody else had to support themselves.
Unemployeed etc:
been there myself, mid 80's, was so broke once I had to live in the back of a store I was working for three week or otherwise would have been homeless. Employer did not know, (I think). Showered at the YMCA each morning. (well a couple of times a week anyway).
That was when I realized that it wasn’t 'one for all and all for one', and the teachings from the 60’s/70’s of ‘live for today’ was a bunch of bull and if I was going to survive that I needed to get focused on what I wanted and work my ass off.
I have never looked back, or slowed down.
Never fell for that crap. Dropping out was only ever an option if you had someone-usually wealthy parents to bail you out financially of things got too tough. Everybody else had to support themselves.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
spot;1043452 wrote: It's not a post about happiness, it's a post about risk which affects ants and grasshoppers equally. You painted a risk-free world in your opening post, in which destitution is a consequence of indolence. Herodotus makes the case against such a simplistic equation.
You oversimplify the matter. Certainly there is risk that no one can foresee, health, disasters and the like and in those cases some assistance may be needed, but it seems to me those are the exceptions whereas socialism extends the supposed need for collective assistance to the norm. That is not only not the case, it is a state of mind that lowers the goals and responsibility of individuals.
I am a great believer in personal decisions and that virtually all of the state of a person is the result of decisions they make or fail to make throughout their lives. Here is one example, after 9-11 there was great government intervention and millions of dollars given to families of survivors with no rhyme nor reason. In my town two young men with several small children each were killed. Neither had any life insurance, yet each family received about $2 million. A tragedy to be sure, but it was their personal responsibility to provide the protection necessary for their young families, not societies.
You oversimplify the matter. Certainly there is risk that no one can foresee, health, disasters and the like and in those cases some assistance may be needed, but it seems to me those are the exceptions whereas socialism extends the supposed need for collective assistance to the norm. That is not only not the case, it is a state of mind that lowers the goals and responsibility of individuals.
I am a great believer in personal decisions and that virtually all of the state of a person is the result of decisions they make or fail to make throughout their lives. Here is one example, after 9-11 there was great government intervention and millions of dollars given to families of survivors with no rhyme nor reason. In my town two young men with several small children each were killed. Neither had any life insurance, yet each family received about $2 million. A tragedy to be sure, but it was their personal responsibility to provide the protection necessary for their young families, not societies.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
gmc;1043737 wrote: That's, on the face of it, quite telling -why on earth would you pay more for a house than it was worth? Had you done the same in 1997 your house your house would now not be worth what you had paid for it but worth far less. You wouldn't be able to re-mortgage for a better rate because you are in negative equity. If you also lost your job because of the down turn-which is looking to be far worse than in the eighties you would be heading for bankruptcy. You were lucky you got away with it.
I also bought my first flat around the same time. I was able at that time get a 100% mortgage-there was no way I would be able to borrow more than a property was valued at and definitely no way I would pay over the odds. This was at the height of the property boom in 80's london when property was selling for silly money and people were eagerly paying over the odds in the expectation prices would always rise. The most I could borrow was three times salary and the interest rate was 13%. Many advocated borrowing to the max and buying the biggest property you could afford.
prudent in my view have.
posted by quinns cmmentary
What if on your way to wealth and happiness something happened-a car accident puts you in a wheelchair, or you just slip on an icy step and break your back.
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
First, I didn't buy the house for more than it was worth, rather in 1988 the price of houses started to drop, I paid what it was worth at the time, just like people who are burned today, except I had to put 20% down.
As far as your examples go, you are right horrible things do happen to nice people and yes people do need help at time. That's why we have unemployment insurance and other programs. On the other hand, there are many ways to protect ones self, but to do so one must also make choices and trade offs and you can't have all you want.
You are also right in that I have been lucky, but on the other hand, I also purchased adequate life insurance, long term care insurance, long term disability insurance, even legal insurance, over many years I have build up emergency funds and saved to the point of not having many luxuries others who are less prudent in my view.
I also bought my first flat around the same time. I was able at that time get a 100% mortgage-there was no way I would be able to borrow more than a property was valued at and definitely no way I would pay over the odds. This was at the height of the property boom in 80's london when property was selling for silly money and people were eagerly paying over the odds in the expectation prices would always rise. The most I could borrow was three times salary and the interest rate was 13%. Many advocated borrowing to the max and buying the biggest property you could afford.
prudent in my view have.
posted by quinns cmmentary
What if on your way to wealth and happiness something happened-a car accident puts you in a wheelchair, or you just slip on an icy step and break your back.
Less dramatic- Say, for example, your company downsized and you hadn't taken out redundancy cover to pay your mortgage and it takes you the better part of a year to get another job because you are in an area hard hit by recession, and the house is repossessed, now you have bad credit rating and can't get a mortgage unless it's at a ridiculous rate, in any case the rent you now have to pay is so high you can't save enough for a deposit. -it's gets harder and harder to get another job the longer you are unemployed because employers think anyone unemployed for more than year is so because they are feckless and a waste of space so you don't even get interviews. All your saving went because of the bankruptcy so moving to another area isn't that easy an option in any case you can't get a job because you don't have a permanent address in that area and employers are suspicious-plus you've been unemployed for a while so clearly you haven't been trying seriously. .
Who then would be responsible for your destitution? You're hard working, prudent (apart from the silliness in paying over the odds for which no one can be responsible except you), but destitute and on the dole. You want to get back on your feet an make a better life. But in those circumstances are you not just a charity case worthy of nothing but contempt? Clearly you're a loser so why should any hard earned tax money from those better off than you be used to provide re-training or indeed any kind of help at all when you are clearly not worth the effort? Don't suppose you actually feel that way but many of your countrymen seem to.
The point is-my apologies to galbally if I'm wrong- you have worked hard to get where you are-you have also been lucky and the fickle finger of fate could so easily have gone the other way. Hard work and doing your best sometimes just doesn't work and you find yourself trapped with no way out. Doesn't mean you are somehow less worthy.
First, I didn't buy the house for more than it was worth, rather in 1988 the price of houses started to drop, I paid what it was worth at the time, just like people who are burned today, except I had to put 20% down.
As far as your examples go, you are right horrible things do happen to nice people and yes people do need help at time. That's why we have unemployment insurance and other programs. On the other hand, there are many ways to protect ones self, but to do so one must also make choices and trade offs and you can't have all you want.
You are also right in that I have been lucky, but on the other hand, I also purchased adequate life insurance, long term care insurance, long term disability insurance, even legal insurance, over many years I have build up emergency funds and saved to the point of not having many luxuries others who are less prudent in my view.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Sometimes you cannot afford all of those insurance policies in themself, long term care would have been a nice luxury to have, I could use it now with my husband. But I pay out about 15-20% net on insurance policies and retirement stuff. Doesn't leave me much afterwards, for basic necessities.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1044338 wrote: You oversimplify the matter. Certainly there is risk that no one can foresee, health, disasters and the like and in those cases some assistance may be needed, but it seems to me those are the exceptions whereas socialism extends the supposed need for collective assistance to the norm. That is not only not the case, it is a state of mind that lowers the goals and responsibility of individuals.
I am a great believer in personal decisions and that virtually all of the state of a person is the result of decisions they make or fail to make throughout their lives. Here is one example, after 9-11 there was great government intervention and millions of dollars given to families of survivors with no rhyme nor reason. In my town two young men with several small children each were killed. Neither had any life insurance, yet each family received about $2 million. A tragedy to be sure, but it was their personal responsibility to provide the protection necessary for their young families, not societies.
I'll give you an example then. A group who were at one point definitively fit, active, mentally agile, the cream of US hopes and aspirations, the nation's finest. There are around 150,000 destitute homeless US veterans in the streets because of unforeseen risk despite their at one point having everything in their favour. They're there because of the lack of social provision in the US system. That lack is there because Americans have this bible-centred myth that God looks after the good and destroys the wicked. Americans see a street hobo and they just know he deserves what's happening to him. It's the way they've been brought up. It's ideological. I'd call it a sin.
I am a great believer in personal decisions and that virtually all of the state of a person is the result of decisions they make or fail to make throughout their lives. Here is one example, after 9-11 there was great government intervention and millions of dollars given to families of survivors with no rhyme nor reason. In my town two young men with several small children each were killed. Neither had any life insurance, yet each family received about $2 million. A tragedy to be sure, but it was their personal responsibility to provide the protection necessary for their young families, not societies.
I'll give you an example then. A group who were at one point definitively fit, active, mentally agile, the cream of US hopes and aspirations, the nation's finest. There are around 150,000 destitute homeless US veterans in the streets because of unforeseen risk despite their at one point having everything in their favour. They're there because of the lack of social provision in the US system. That lack is there because Americans have this bible-centred myth that God looks after the good and destroys the wicked. Americans see a street hobo and they just know he deserves what's happening to him. It's the way they've been brought up. It's ideological. I'd call it a sin.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
spot;1044465 wrote: I'll give you an example then. A group who were at one point definitively fit, active, mentally agile, the cream of US hopes and aspirations, the nation's finest. There are around 150,000 destitute homeless US veterans in the streets because of unforeseen risk despite their at one point having everything in their favour. They're there because of the lack of social provision in the US system. That lack is there because Americans have this bible-centred myth that God looks after the good and destroys the wicked. Americans see a street hobo and they just know he deserves what's happening to him. It's the way they've been brought up. It's ideological. I'd call it a sin.
There may be some Americans who feel that way, but that is not the norm. What you illustrate is the failure of the existing sytems and the govenrment programs, not the system of government. A few years back some ("liberal") politicians made a big stink that people were unfairly confined in mental institutions and must be released. They were and ended up on the streets of New York.
Sometime governemnt is the problem, not the solution.
There may be some Americans who feel that way, but that is not the norm. What you illustrate is the failure of the existing sytems and the govenrment programs, not the system of government. A few years back some ("liberal") politicians made a big stink that people were unfairly confined in mental institutions and must be released. They were and ended up on the streets of New York.
Sometime governemnt is the problem, not the solution.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1044553 wrote: What you illustrate is the failure of the existing sytems and the govenrment programs, not the system of government. A few years back some ("liberal") politicians made a big stink that people were unfairly confined in mental institutions and must be released. They were and ended up on the streets of New York.
Sometime governemnt is the problem, not the solution.
So much for the ant and the grasshopper.
Socialism recognizes that individuals face risks which no amount of planning can avoid. Some can make do, some are never equipped to even do that. Socialism says that we can all survive with dignity if we all adhere to a social contract in which none are left to destitution regardless of the reason they might approach it.
It's scarcely rocket science.
Sometime governemnt is the problem, not the solution.
So much for the ant and the grasshopper.
Socialism recognizes that individuals face risks which no amount of planning can avoid. Some can make do, some are never equipped to even do that. Socialism says that we can all survive with dignity if we all adhere to a social contract in which none are left to destitution regardless of the reason they might approach it.
It's scarcely rocket science.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Lessons from Sixth Century BC
Another example?
Since my fourteenth birthday I have been idle for three weeks - two where I was unable to find work and one where I was between jobs and went down with Chickenpox.
When my wife and I first got together we lived in a rented flat - it was awful but so what. Time came that we were expecting and we were determined that our child would not be born into the environment we were in so we bought a two up two down using all of our savings and all of my income.
As fate would have it we bought at the top of the market just before the crash - within three months the interest rate had doubled and the mortgage payments were astronomical. Was this stupidity? I don't think so as no one was predicting it and we had no cause to suspect it would happen,
No way I could get a better job when just keeping a job was an achievement. No way we could sell with negative equity. The likelihood was bankruptcy and a life on the streets.
Thankfully, the downturn was fairly short lived and we survived on left overs and luck. Today we could be considered to be a successful family but we were so close to being down-an'-outs - is this the margin of error that you want for your children's lives?
Society as a whole makes decisions that have a radical effect on the lives of the citizens of that society - it is responsible for the results of those decisions and the effects that they have on the people living within the society.
Since my fourteenth birthday I have been idle for three weeks - two where I was unable to find work and one where I was between jobs and went down with Chickenpox.
When my wife and I first got together we lived in a rented flat - it was awful but so what. Time came that we were expecting and we were determined that our child would not be born into the environment we were in so we bought a two up two down using all of our savings and all of my income.
As fate would have it we bought at the top of the market just before the crash - within three months the interest rate had doubled and the mortgage payments were astronomical. Was this stupidity? I don't think so as no one was predicting it and we had no cause to suspect it would happen,
No way I could get a better job when just keeping a job was an achievement. No way we could sell with negative equity. The likelihood was bankruptcy and a life on the streets.
Thankfully, the downturn was fairly short lived and we survived on left overs and luck. Today we could be considered to be a successful family but we were so close to being down-an'-outs - is this the margin of error that you want for your children's lives?
Society as a whole makes decisions that have a radical effect on the lives of the citizens of that society - it is responsible for the results of those decisions and the effects that they have on the people living within the society.