That’s why she’s so rich–she creates value for people who are willing to pay a lot for her services. . . to get entertained. And she touches so many people! (For the very first time. OK, eww. . . I can’t even type that.)
And then she dumps some of that back in the economy when she hires tax lawyers to invest her money and then invests in stocks that uphold the backbone of our civilization.
Wow, how could we do without her?!
Given the topic of the thread, I guess some of us thought you meant that you help people out of their circumstances to live a better life, not that you indirectly contribute to the bottom-line of the economy. I suspect most people do that in some way, although some are more indirect than others. It’s good though, that you feel that your job is so meaningful.
Do you have any understanding of why Spain ceased being a world power, RR?
You make substantial money by exploiting the laziness or greed of others with regard to their paying their fir share into the pool of money that underwrites governmental services to the body politic, i.e., the 300 or so million Americans, taken as a group. By your Objectivist philosophy you make clear that you despise all others who are not so fortunate as you to have found a niche where you can parasitize that body politic. I know two other Objectivists whom I respect greatly, but in each case their Objectivism is tempered by kindness and generosity and deep-seated beliefs, one a solid Christian and one a holistic student of Deepak Chokra.
I think you picked a bad example if you were trying to say something about how little someone like Madonna contributes to the economy. You’ve forgotten about the number of people she hires, not just for her accounts but for her shows. She pays the venues, the dancers, the sound people, the extras, the musicians, the security, the stage hands and builders, the artists, the assistants, the advertisers, the trucking companies, and distributors. She purchases hotel rooms, plane tickets, limousine services, catering services, construction materials, graphic art, costumes, and many other goods and services. There are also many economic transactions conducted on behalf of her: gifts from hotels and venues, contests and prizes, coordinated events, department stores (people buying clothes and accessories to wear to her concerts), restaurants, and on and on. And we haven’t even touched things like the record companies and their suppliers. So, Madonna’s not a good pick. Don’t pick Elton John either because he does all that plus goes on gigantic local shopping sprees. Come to think of it, if you want to pick someone who contributes very little to the economy, then your best bet is pick someone like you or me.
Of course not, but people will look at your responses and draw conclusions. My conclusion is that you overstated your case and cannot bring yourself to just admit it.
It depends how you define “nitpicking.” To me, “nitpicking” means attacking some minor and/or immaterial point while pretending to be responding to the best reasonable argument of one’s opponent. I don’t think Bricker was nitpicking by this definition.
To some people, “nitpicking” would seem to mean tenaciously arguing some issue while your oppenent tries to weasel out of what they said earlier. If that’s how you define it, then Bricker is probably nitpicking.
In any event, you backed yourself into your own verbal corner, but as usual, there is a very easy avenue of escape. Just say “You are right, I overstated my case. What I should have said is that it seems like there are essentially no suitable jobs for me.”
Except that’s not what Bricker wants - he wants me to admit to lying rather than hyperbole and to grovel and admit I don’t don’t deserve to be employed because I am a liar (he even stated that he thought I was unfit to be employed because he considers me a liar). That’s not “I think you overstated your case” that’s “you’re a despicable human being and you deserve to starve”. Again, it’s blame the victim and poor people either choose to be poor or deserve to be poor, which I’ve been hearing for decades and it is still reprehensible.
At first I thought it was hyperbole. When you kept defending the literal truth of what you’d said, it became more and more unlikely in my mind that it was simply hyperbole, and more and likely that you were outright lying. But I still thnk it’s possible you’re simply too stubbornor too ashamed to break down and say, “Yes, it was hyperbole.” In fact, given your recent test balloon of “everyone else understands me” I think that’s now the most likely scenario – you want everyone to nod and say “hyperbole” without making you explicitly admit hyperbole.
Nowhere have I said you don’t deserve to be employed. What I said was that if it’s literally true that for weeks and weeks you could find “NO, repeat NO” want ads, then your resourcefulness was such that few employers would look at you as an asset – and I stand behind that.
Now, if you didn’t literally mean what you said, then of course what I said doesn’t apply. But if you still say that in weeks and weeks of looking, you couldn’t find a single help wanted ad, then yes – based on your inability to find readily-available ads, I’d say you’re not a good candidate for too many jobs.
Your post is chock-full of things attributed to me that I didn’t say. It’s a desperate attempt to turn the attention away from the specifics of your words by distraction.
Now that several others have chimed in, and it’s clear I’m not the only one who is unclear on what your meaning is, why don’t you take a a brief thirty seconds and type it out so we all can see it?
Or is everyone who questioned you ALSO cursed with poor reading comprehension?
In other words, you wouldn’t hire me, you called me a liar, and said I lacked adult skills. That’s fucking insulting you asshole. How is that different than saying I deserve to be unemployed and deserve to be homeless and starving? It’s a fucking Pit rant, not a legal proceeding you scumbag lawyer. Since fucking WHEN are rants held to that standard?
YOU fucking apologize for essentially telling me I somehow deserve my current situation and deserve to be poor and lose everything I’ve ever had and I’ll consider backing down. You fucking apologize for kicking me when I’m down, you piece of wormshit. I am tired of your superior, condescending attitude that says because I’m poor I’m less a human being than you.
Please note the “or” in my statement. One of those two things, I said, is true.
I certainly stand by the second one: IF it’s true, literally, that in weeks and weeks of looking, you found “NO, repeat NO” want ads, when we both know that there were plenty of want ads in weeks and weeks, then you lack basic adult skills.
So no apology for that claim.
If it’s NOT true, literally, that in weeks and weeks of looking, you found “NO, repeat NO” wants ads, then I am willing to concede that there’s another explanation beyond a simple lie – that you started with a hyperbolic statement, got called on it, and inexplicably decided to defend the hyperbole as literally true, over SIX PAGES of thread space, instead of simply saying, “Dude, get real: obviously I didn’t literally mean zero ads, even though that’s what I said. It’s hyperbole; look it up.”
So if this has all been a case of hyperbole, and your bizarre unwillingness to admit it’s hyperbole, and your continued attempts to claim that the hyperbole was literal truth… IF that’s the case, then I apologize for calling you a liar.
I think you are considering this in perhaps the wrong way. What contributes to the economy most is demand. It is not Madonna, per se; she is just an entertainment commodity. If people didn’t want her products, then maybe I would have a harder time getting tickets to Ensemble Dialogos. [sub]No, probably not.[/sub] The people who contribute the most to the economy are the ones who desire a service someone else can provide.
