Do you live your life by your principles?

so, you're saying everyone who acquires wealth does so to the detriment of others? or, am I missing something ?

definately missing something. the word "everyone" would include everybody in the whole world who ever gained wealth, i would have thought it obvious that i meant people running large multinational businesses who's activities directly affect vulnerable people. for example logging and mineral extraction in the amazon basin or going back in history to disasters like Bhopal.

I'd say that pretty much accurately sums up the world, yeah. If we're talking *wealthy *wealth and not just 'acquiring' a monthly paycheck.

please, feel free to elaborate, coz from where Im sitting, that sounds like you paint all wealthy people with the same brush, which is hardly fair or accurate, by any stretch.

Not everyone is born into wealth or with a silver spoon in their gob, what about those people who work their asses off ..sacrifice to give their families and extended families better security for the future?..and those who give generously to organizations where government funding is small and without such donations, research and cures would take even longer to achieve??

its very easy for people to think one dimensional in regards to wealth.

On that note, I will leave it at that.

definately missing something. the word "everyone" would include everybody in the whole world who ever gained wealth, i would have thought it obvious that i meant people running large multinational businesses who's activities directly affect vulnerable people. for example logging and mineral extraction in the amazon basin or going back in history to disasters like Bhopal.

sorry, you didnt make it clear at all or, I simply misunderstood.

Im not referring to multinational companies nor greed . Nor every single person...

I think its clear from my post above what I mean.

I'd say that pretty much accurately sums up the world, yeah. If we're talking *wealthy *wealth and not just 'acquiring' a monthly paycheck.

Depends what your definition of wealthy wealth is, ultimately. I know plenty of people who've made a decent wedge of cash by doing nothing but positive things - designers, artists, producers, musicians, actors, what have you. It's rarer to find that in the business world, but it's not impossible - in fact, there's almost an argument against it, since business is defined not only by clout, but by reputation - I personally would never work with someone who had an ethically dodgy past.

It's true that some of the richest people are also some of the most ethically reprehensible. But it's not a given in all situations, and I think some people are prone to using the disagreeableness of someone like Fred Goodwin (or whichever rich scumbag happens to be the whipping boy at the time) as an excuse for their own inability to create wealth.

There's nothing negative about having money, whether you earned it or your family earned it or whatever. Money is neutral, it only becomes good or bad when we use it for good or bad. I intend on being as rich as I possibly can be, not because I'm greedy, but because I want to be sure my parents are comfortable, that my sister's kid has the things she needs, that I pay back the love that was given to me growing up.

Look, if you happen to be rich, it's a good idea to be grateful for it, if you happen to be blessed that way. But it's also a good idea for those of us who grew up dirt poor (me for example) to do our best not to be pissy at those who have been lucky enough to have families who were able to provide for them.

Having said that, posh upper middle class boys can fuck off. Braying red-cheeked, horse-faced, over-privileged cunts. But that aside, I stand by everything I said. :D

please, feel free to elaborate, coz from where Im sitting, that sounds like you paint all wealthy people with the same brush, which is hardly fair or accurate, by any stretch.

It was a touch glib, I'll admit! Yes... I was meaning more the multi-national corporate wealth to which Mr Smyth referred. Although, I would perhaps include many of those who work for such companies (outside of contract cleaners etc) enabling them to continue their general exploitation of the world and its workers, and all those who aid and abet the unethical practices of such companies.

The question we'd then have to ask, is what constitutes 'aiding and abetting'?

And then I have to make the following, overly pious argument, that even I can't be bothered to adhere to in reality half the time:

Because, one way or another, most people in the western world 'contribute' more money to unethical companies than to overtly ethical ones, or to charities, be it through banking (and don't our British banks have a insatiable predeliction for investing in arms and fossil fuel companies?), shopping and so on etc. We fund their continued existence.

So our acquired, comparative wealth, fiscal and material, is ultimately (arguably) to the detriment of the workers/miners/farmers/cotton pickers of yore etc, etc.

I quite agree that not everyone is born into wealth and that many people work seriously hard from heavily handicapped backgrounds up to the top of successful companies; I have no problem with those who work hard getting their rewards (provided they pay tax honestly and don't dodge every penny they can).

I just find it a little difficult to stomach it sometimes when people 'work hard' for large companies whose business models are based almost entirely upon exploitation at some level, or when their 'rewards' are hundreds of times larger than those of the people who actually keep the company functioning day to day.

Depends what your definition of wealthy wealth is, ultimately. I know plenty of people who've made a decent wedge of cash by doing nothing but positive things - designers, artists, producers, musicians, actors, what have you.

Again, I have no doubt this is true. There are people who do geniune good with their lives and are not motivated by a desire or* need *to earn large sums.

But conversely, there are people who design Nestle chocolate bar wrappers, who shoot Mercedes adverts, who sell their music to H&M advertisments or star in commericals for BP. Again - a fairly trite line of argument to take, but a valid one nonetheless. These 'creatives' who choose the paycheck over ethics are, imho, little better that the execs who are running these companies.

Furthermore, we all go to supermarkets and buy vegetables from Kenya that are grown by people who are paid tuppence for their unrelenting hard labour. Many of us buy clothes from high street stores that subcontract every level of their manufacturing process out so many times that there is no real accountablity, no real way of ensuring the workers in whatever south-east asian town are actually getting paid *any *kind of decent wage - this is a wealth, a freedom, that the majority of the world does not have.

I can't really be bothered to go on, because I know many people view this sort of arguement as typical left-wing bollocks, because I know nothing will ever be done about it, and, like Tynan et al, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we might as well just live life, enjoy it and wash all the 'bad stuff' down with delicious (locally sourced) ale.

I know plenty of people who've made a decent wedge of cash by doing nothing but positive things - designers, artists, producers, musicians, actors, what have you.

Do you equate "creative" with positive?

Again, I have no doubt this is true. There are people who do geniune good with their lives and are not motivated by a desire or* need *to earn large sums.

But conversely, there are people who design Nestle chocolate bar wrappers, who shoot Mercedes adverts, who sell their music to H&M advertisments or star in commericals for BP. Again - a fairly trite line of argument to take, but a valid one nonetheless. These 'creatives' who choose the paycheck over ethics are, imho, little better that the execs who are running these companies.

Agreed, and in fact I'd go a little further and say that those 'creatives' are actually quite a bit worse, because creatives have an OPTION. People who sell their art to the highest bidder disgust me, because artists are supposed to be better - to understand ethics. I don't think it's a trite argument in the slightest, I think it's the only really valid one.

Furthermore, we all go to supermarkets and buy vegetables from Kenya that are grown by people who are paid tuppence for their unrelenting hard labour. Many of us buy clothes from high street stores that subcontract every level of their manufacturing process out so many times that there is no real accountablity, no real way of ensuring the workers in whatever south-east asian town are actually getting paid *any *kind of decent wage.

I do my very best not to do this - don't buy from Tesco, don't buy from clothes companies which use sweatshops, yadeyah. My point is that I don't see it as being incompatible with making money. In fact I think we need more successful people with a grasp of their own luck - just as people who were born into wealth are lucky, even those of us who are dirt-poor are just as lucky not to've been born in a third-world country.

I can't really be bothered to go on, because I know many people view this sort of arguement as typical left-wing bollocks, because I know nothing will ever be done about it, and, like Tynan et al, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we might as well just live life, enjoy it and wash all the 'bad stuff' down with delicious (locally sourced) ale.

Totally agree about the ale, but don't agree that nothing'll be done. McDonalds used to sell nothing but artery-hardening horribleness, now they're doing salads. If it's not for consumer pressure to resolve these issues, then nothing will be done, and there'll end up being no ethical companies for the rich to invest in. Then we really will be fucked.

EDIT - I didn't make this last point very well due to the fact that I was on a call at the time. What I was trying to say was that if all the ethical people are outside the mainstream, that means that the inevitable assholes working for large corporations will remain unchecked. Some corporations - like McDonalds and RBS and whatever - are so rotten that they jsut need to die. But others can be saved. I work for a large multinational communications company and we work in an ethical way but if it weren't for people like me constantly raising ethical issues, there would be a slippery slope downwards.

Or as someone wiser than me once said - don't hate the media, BECOME the media.

Do you equate "creative" with positive?

Of course not, I'm not a fucking retard. There are a shitpile of unethical photographers, musicians, designers. I'm talking about people I know.

I was going to post a reply to some of this twaddle but it might make me look as though I could give a damn and tarnish my nihilistic credentials.

To give, you first have to take away.

And that is why every rich person should die for the crimes they have committed and continue to commit by enslaving the bulk of the world's population.

I lol'd.

Yeah, I did a bit of a lol tbh

So what is the wealth test? Are you living by your murderous priciples?

Your logic is just a little flawed.

To the people of India, who I've seen live on a pound a day, Knoydart is unbelievably - and therefore, by his own standards - unforgivably rich.

I presume he's prepared to commit hari kiri for this transgression (with a Tesco Value knife, natch)?

i lied, your self contradictory drivel is just a waste of time

"
I am trying to always think positively about myself, and of those who I meet. My first thought when someone is rude is to wonder what has happened in their life/day that is bad that has caused them to act like that. etc etc
In short, I am trying to stop thinking about myself. Not what can this do for me, but what good can this bring about? To care less about the self brings so much joy. "

"And that is why every rich person should die for the crimes they have committed and continue to commit by enslaving the bulk of the world's population."

So you have failed, now shut the fuck up

obvious troll is obvious?

dont think he is an intentional troll, just an idiot who thinks he is clever

Yeah, trolls usually have a little giveaway of intelligence to display to the reader that they're not actually a fuckwit. I fear this guy is actually a fuckwit.

So dull it even merits a lolcat.

I used to live by Principles. Cant say I rated it.

to give you first have to take away. that premise is undeniable.

Dear chap.

Please do one of a number of things:

a) See a doctor
b) Grow up
c) Stop taking the tablets
d) Start taking the tablets
e) Stop listening to the voices
f) Go fo a ride
g) Go for a drink
h) Stop drinking

BUT whichever you chose STAY AWAY from the keyboard.

why is reality so hard to accept for most people?

Denying it is not the oly way to live you know