Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Lottery
Sub-Z:
--- Quote from: Crack Head Andy on December 26, 2002, 07:54:12 PM ---pay for the mental help sub-z always need.
--- End quote ---
thank you! you are a real pal ;D
bLaDe:
--- Quote from: Crack Head Andy on December 26, 2002, 07:54:12 PM ---than i would buy blade that pet pony he always wanted.
--- End quote ---
yayyy
-{bLaDe}
Ant:
I have never bought a lottery ticket and I most likely never will.
If I ever won that amount of money I wouldn't give it away. It would sit in my bank account until I figured out what to do with it. That would require a lot of learning on my part which would be pretty fun.
I used to believe in giving money away but no longer do. Charities are for the most part the most inefficient organizations in America. They are usually not comprised of many great minds, and if by chance they have some intelligence on their board it is sure to be drowned out by the housewives of America that need some sense of importance in their life.
I would definitely not give to my church. Especially since I belong to a Roman Catholic church. Just take a walk into a catholic church and you can literally see money being pissed away. Sure every week that give out brownies to homeless people, but those brownies are about 1% of the money they take in. The rest goes to cover the enormous maintainence bills associated with heating, and maintaining huge cathedrals. Although maybe if they start selling indulgences again I'd consider it. ;)
At most I would consider establishing my own charity. If I was to run an non-profit it would be devoted towards educational reform. Actually I have small dream to open a school one day when I'm older and wiser.
On a final note. I'm glad this money was won by a business man and not some poor fellow. While I can't judge this persons abilty from a far, if he is an accomplished and able businessperson than I'm sure this money will go to good use. Arguing from the side of a general business person. Its better for a business to win this money than a poor person for a number of reasons. Notably, the business will make more use of this money than the poor guy. The poor guy will spend it trying to live la vida loca (or whatever you want to call it), he will pass some of it around to his friends, and donate the rest to charity. Trying to live the high life will inevitably destroy him and those around him while he meanwhile pisses the money down the drain. I say it will destroy him because money is a status symbol. And unearned money is unearned status, a difficult thing to deal with. When pursuing material possessions its worthwhile to consider if you want them to enjoy them or because you think they will add meaning to your life. If the answer is the latter expect future problems. The rest of the money he donates to charity will be pissed away as well, as already touched on. The end effect, not much.
The intelligent business man can use this money to expand his business. This may lead to new products, more effecient processes, new jobs, etc. All of these things benefit society for a longer duration than quick money that is here and gone. Since all the people that wish this money went to a nice normal fellow that will give it all away in the spirit of helping society. If you really want to help society its more logical to route for a business person. Its just that this is not what anyone wants to hear. I know there are greedy businessmen. But there are greedy poor people too. Do you cheer for the little guy because its the most logical thing to do or because its what society deems it the "right" thing to do?
Trauma-san:
Hmmm; Interesting, but I'd ask you "do you say the opposite of everybody else becuase you believe that, or do you say it because you don't want to be a conformist"
The guy that won it didn't need it. That's why i'd prefer somebody else win it... it doesn't have to be a poor person. It could be Blade. How many Blade's are there in the world that would inevitably use it for good? Millions, I'd just rather one of them win it.
Ant:
No I either say what I believe. Or if its in the form of a question I'm challenging other peoples assumptions. Although I will admit my opinions do change often.
My arguement is this though. (Only saying blade because you used his name). If blade won all that money he would "at best" try to do good with it. He may not even desire to do "good" with it and that is up to him. However if he does desire to do good with it thats not as easy as it sounds. None of us are here are all that educated, intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable. Some may believe they are but it all depends on your yardstick. If you are comparing yourself to the people in your neighborhood maybe your considered intelligent. But if you extend that yardstick the picture changes.
What I'm saying is, is that while the average Joe might have a heart of gold it takes more than a good heart to handle the resonsibility that comes along with such a large amount of money. Forget trying to effectively allocate your money for the "good of society", its going to be difficult just to deal with the status change. Making the most effective use of such a some of money is even more difficult. I realize that I am in no position to effectively ration out large sums of money, and neither are most Americans.
You may say the big shots of the world are selfish greedy bastards, but there is a huge responsibility that comes with being a big shot. A responsibility that is not understood by the general public. Part of that responsibility is that you have to be able to consider more than just the present moment. You have to be able to stand on your own, by your convictions often times against popular opinion. Do you really think that the "accomplished" men and women of the United States got there by doing what public opinion agrees is correct? They certainly didn't, but yet these people are necesary for the success of all Americans.
Public opinion believes its best to help your neighbor and friends, donate to charity, and give to your church. But public opinion is not the product of rational collaboration. Church doctrine is not the product of rational thinking. Any organization which bases itself on faith sacrifices its rationality. I'm not condemning the public or the church. All I'm saying is that while it may be normal to believe the common man can do the most good, its not necesarily the case. The common man who wins large sums of money does the most easily visible good. But he is not the person that can do the most. The people that I believe do the most good aren't necesarily visible to the public. And they aren't necesarily doing it with "good" intentions, but they inevitably benefit society whether society wants to recognize it or not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version