Best Posts in Thread: Kardashian

I disagree that's what that means. To me "self" made means you did it all by your self. She absolutely did not do it on her own. Without her parent's and family's wealth, fame and tv show she absolutely would NOT be where she is now. She comes from generational wealth and privilege, f*ck her "accomplishments", they should not be celebrated or looked up to as there is nothing obtainable about her story. IMO it takes away from people who are actually self-made.

 

Since you brought it up let's see what Mr. Webster has to say about it:

If your family wealth paid for you to go to a prominent ivy league school and you used their existing political, judicial and/or economic influence...well, did you really achieve your success through you own efforts? I say no, Webster also says no. (If you like we can look up the definition of "own" as well.) Inheritance is only one of many ways a person can get support from their family, Forbes definition ignores everything but inheritance.

"Little bit"? Coming from a family worth millions is not a "little bit" of help, it is a massive amount of help.

I did. I brought this up because there is a huge portion of the US population that does idolize the rich and famous. They think it is obtainable. It is not. It is such a pipe-dream that I can tell anyone I meet with absolute certainty they will NEVER achieve it.

I don't get why you are impressed with billionaires then. A person is just as likely to be born into a wealthy and influential family as they are to win the lottery.

"Inherited vs Self-made". Apples and oranges. We aren't speaking the same language. Yeah, very few have inherited over a billion USD...but they have built on to their family's wealth, influence, fame and privilege.

Not just my definition, Mr. Webster's as well. But maybe we should just stick to what the media conglomerates defines as "self-made"...surely the owners of companies like "Forbes" aren't biased in any way. I mean, it's not like "Forbes" is a family name or anything.

I wonder if the Forbes children think they are also "self-made" since they didn't inherit a billion dollars from anyone, I mean...what has starting off with the best education money can buy, zero debt, Millions of USD cash and your family name on one of the most prominent financial magazine ever done for anyone? Self-made all the way!

I suppose that isn't all that interesting, it is expected. In our current system wealth breeds wealth, poverty breeds poverty.

No contempt. The wealthy becoming more wealthy is the norm, it is the way the world works. There is nothing inspirational about compound interest, stock market growth and utilizing tax "loopholes" (I do all these things myself).

What I would like to see change is these huge company mergers stop, monopolies broken up, for corporations to stop being seen as "individuals" (or to actually be seen as individuals and be forced to close their doors and cease all business activity after they have been convicted of a crime, similar to an actual prison sentences for actual individuals), their executives be held accountable for their decisions and for it to be made illegal for corporations to donate to political campaigns. I would like to see these corporate executive c*nts that are busted stealing millions, even billions, from the poor be sent to prison for longer than a guy that stole $50 from a gas station. I'm sure there are plenty of other things I would like to see...but will never happen.

So again, not contempt, I just want them to be forced to play the same game with the same rules the rest of us are playing with.

 

Oh, is that what "Forbes" says? I simply don't agree with their definition of self-made. You can show me a billion sources that say he is self-made, I'm going to disagree with all of them. You seem to not want to acknowledge that generational wealth and privilege are one of the key ingredients to becoming a billionaire.

It is a pretty lucky feat. There is more luck involved in becoming a billionaire...and many of these billion openly admit it. It is nothing to idolize.

I bet you are super impressed with lottery winners too!

So you are impressed with the numbers. Ok. What percentage of those 2153 billionaires came from poverty? What percentage came from wealthy families? I'd like to know. A sampling from the top 10 is probably going to give a good idea.

I simply don't care enough to look up his family history. He and his executives at Facebook are some of the most unethical douchenuggets on this planet, they should be in prison for the laws and ethics they have been violating IMO...but the rules are different for the super wealthy. Idolize him if you want but this world would be better off without him or his "success".

 

They aren't investing. They are hording it.

And they aren't elected. They absolutely should not be trusted because they are accountable to no one. They are going to do what is in their best interest, not society's. We have already seen how this plays out with monopolies. It isn't good.

 

They also said she was "self-made". I guess we can all achieve the same thing, we just have to follow suite and leverage off of our very wealthy and famous parents and siblings and the reality TV show we star in.