Is there a science that says rich people are parasites and often have bad personality traits?
>>16855686Physiognomy.
>>16855689Antisemite
>>16855686cope, poorfag
>>16855686Extremely harmful parasites. The only solution is extermination of all their bloodlines.
>>16855686>Is there a science that says rich people are parasitesYeah:>Sociology>History>Biology
>>16855686Rich people also can be more capable, hard working and intelligent.'Poor people' mentality is way worse
>>16856441> rIcH pEoPle aLsO cAn bE mOrE cApAbLe, hArD wOrKiNg aNd iNtElLiGeNt.LMAO
>>16856441Prove it and i will stop being a communist
>>16855689How did you not notice this as a bait thread? LMAO.
>>16857221>>16855686nta Isn’t the proof in their wallet? I do not much belong here, “scientifically” but have insight from rags to riches. The feeling of being poor may be one thing, but the mathematical reality of actually having much less than others is the result of stupidity. Most of it is wilful blatant lazy pride is doing the stupidest shit they can think of and hopefully getting lucky. What is a wealthy guy to do except try to educate these retards while exploiting their energies through employment? The little business I left in my shithole town has the type of people who want to drink too much and not come to work and impregnate their wives and run away with their cousins, always high on prescription drugs, impulse buy crap they leave at the apartment they get kicked out of and get charged because they turned off the electric too early and the contractor, had to clean the mess the made, leaving valuables behind, spending their inheritance money and selling family real estate to buy cars and weed. All kinds of shit like that. People are poor because they are stupid. Everyone knows that they can at least make interest in savings. Everyone knows that you can always have more if they spend less than they get. How can the rich be to blame? These stupid fucks would have nothing at all if the rich were not parasites.
>>16855686Yeah, its called the science of envy.
>>16855706>t.
>>16855686no. on average they actually have better personality traits. you won't like to hear this, but poor people have poorer personality traits on average. here is the harsh reality>beautiful people are smarter on average>richer people are more virtuous people on average
>>16860062slurping their used cumrags you get from dumpster diving on their trash yard won't make (You) rich though
>>16855686Yes, it’s called Reality.
>>16860062most get their wealth through nepotism and parasitismthe age of productive industrial capitalism was replaced by financialisation.
>>16860080where the wealth comes from is irrelevant. your second point is even more irrelevant.>>16860073your tantrum doesn't invalidate the facts. any cursory research on this would educate you. it's rather amusing that your vulgarity (suggestive of high neuroticism) contracts the point you attempted to make.
>>16860082>contractscontradicts*. oops.
>>16860082the age of productive industrial capitalism did elevate the best, financialisation elevated parasites at the expense of the productive.The peak is narrow most will be better than the average of the masses but we can distinguish between the calibre of the elites elevated by a real system instead of a usurious system
>>16860089I say this with kindness. You're showing lexical patterns of schizophrenia. Consider a screening.
>>16860117Provide an actual argument.
>>16860120There is nothing to argue against. It's word salad. If you want someone to argue with you, try communicating your points clearly.
>>16860122>It's word saladare you illiterate?
>>16860123You have a lot to learn.
>>16860127Look anon, your claim of better on average just means they are better than 50% of people. thats a very broad and general claim because the bottom 50% will contain a higher proportion of genetic abnormalities and deformities.What I am describing is how the elites have been replaced by nepotisitic usurious parasites.When you start winnowing down your arguments we can have an actual discussion, until then you will just call me names.
>>16860132>better on average just means they are better than 50% of people.No, that is what median means. Average only equals median in a normal distribution, which these traits do not follow. >the elites have been replaced by nepotisitic usurious parasites.Schizophrenic, conspiratorial thinking unsubstantiated by evidence. If you had proper, strong arguments to make, you wouldn't need to shield them behind $5 words. You likely already know this, at least subconsciously. Since whenever you make your points using ordinary language, you get called out for the nonsense that it is.
>>16860136You didn't say anything about being average by wealth.Seems like an odd claim to spin, >Schizophrenic, conspiratorial thinking unsubstantiated by evidence.Just because you refuse to look at evidence does not stop it from existing.
>>16860142>You didn't say anything about being average by wealth.Because that's not what I'm claiming. It's amusing how you accused me of being illiterate, when you're the one who cannot read.
>>16860143I know you can't help being a fag but could you cut the deflection and underlying superiority complex.
>>16860149Remember when you said this?>Provide an actual argument.Have you tried not being a hypocrite? As I said. Word salad is not something one can argue with. I'll accept your concession.
>>16860155Okay let's try something else, we'll put aside your dismissal of any possibility of financial conspiracies.Correct me if I misread you.Your claim that the richer are on average better than the poorer I have no dispute with since it's a simple very broad claim, being better than the average isn't hardWhat I have an issue with is the significance of this claim, and the potential confounding variables of evironment ie wealth providing a better lifestyle. But I'm not a commie so this is more a nuance over what you are seemingly ignoring than some equality delusion.There is more I'd like to dispute but I don't have the time anymore. Maybe later.
>>16860166>Your claim that the richer are on averageWrong.
>>16860170forgot to copy the word "better". the problem word is better. nowhere did I ever use that word to describe them. That's your illiterate interpretation of it.
>>16860170>actually have better personality traits?
>>16860177That doesn't mean better people, anon. Do you not understand what a personality trait is?
>>16860023>but the mathematical reality of actually having much less than others is the result of stupidity. MI asked for proof not for repeating the same statement. Prove that poor people have a worse mentality than rich people. And no, saying "i know this one dumb poor motherfucker" isnt proof. Prove it using rational and not emotional arguments without being hysterical, it only backfires if you think emotional appeals and cussing will make your argument stick harder.You are going to show what poor people mentality is like and what rich people mentality is like, present both and then compare the differences.
>>16860023Avocado toast amirite?
>>16860207pretty simple boss, if poor people had better personalities they could stop being poor
>>16860224>if poor people had better personalities they could stop being poorThis is repeating the same statement one more time, still no evidence provided. You must be indian, indians have this idea that the world is just so whatever happens is just deserved. If someone suffers he is bad, in this life or some other, and must be punished, and the opposite for rich people, whom should be worshipped and rewarded. This psychology isnt based on any rationality, as theres no reason to believe that the world is fair, as a baseline model of reality.
>>16860227BTW, this idea comes straight out of the hindu religions, both hinduism and budhism, that claim you are rewarded in future life for the merits of your current life. So indians consider everything to be a fair reward or punishment.Theres no rational thought beyond, its simply your religion.
>>16860224>if poor people had better personalities they could stop being poorCorrect by definition, so long as you define 'better' to mean 'conferring economic advantage', e.g. high-functioning parasitism and sociopathy would be a better personality. :^)
>>16855689Fippy bippy
>>16860207Nah, you’re just a regular tardo. What proof do you need besides the score in the bank accounts? Money is a measure of value. Poor are worthless. QED as you say.
Power positions in our current system select for psychopathy traits. If you have two competing cooperations and one CEO is willing to use child labour in indonesia and dump toxic waste into a river and turn it into a dead sewer, while the other tries to avoid these things, the first one will outcompete the second. Same for rising to high positions inside a cooperation, .gov or other institutions. So the richer someone is, the higher the likelihood that its an irredeemable asshole that should be shot for the benefit of mankind and the future of our children.
>>16860328Most poorfags are essentially sociopaths, though. Why aren't they rich?
>>16860330If youre an asshole without morals, but also stupid, you wont get much past abusing your family. High functioning psychopaths rise up and will always have a high advantage to equally capable peers with a conscience. Non psychopaths also might just decide they want to do something that makes them happy or helps others, despite it paying like shit. Think actually motivated teachers or healthcare workers other than highly payed doctors.
>>16860310>What proof do you need besides the score in the bank accounts?This isnt evidence of any mentality. Emmanuel Kant used to be so poor he had to share pants with two other roommates. Either way you are not attempting to prove anything, you simply repeat your original assertion and think it must be self-evident. It clearly isnt, so if you have nothing more to say just leave it at that and stop repeating the same crap. The ad hominem just shows your lack of arguments.
>>16860335>an asshole without morals, but also stupidMost rich people fall under this category.
>>16860361well thats the nepobaby part. turns out you can be stupid if your dad send you to yale and called a buddy to hire you after.If its too bad, they have a high chance of turning a 100million into 50million debt when they take over daddies business though.
Most rich people simply inherit their money, not all of them of course, just most of them. Rich families just have some ancestor that made money, and its been passed down for generations.First generation rich do tend to be smart, following generations are dumber than average as they never have to learn how to do anything. They wont do as much as manage companies, they just make calls to the wealth management office to send them cash.
>>16860367>Most rich people simply inherit their moneyProof of this leftist narrative?>First generation rich do tend to be smart, following generations are ...... smarter than average, according to your own premise and the fact that intelligence is highly heritable.
>>16860371>Proof of this leftist narrative?Ever heard of inheritance? You think rich people simply live forever and dont have kids that also have kids?
>>16860384See >>16860371>>Most rich people simply inherit their money>Proof of this leftist narrative?Your next post will contain no attempts to prove it, either.
imagine being a poorfag that worships the rich, the absolute state of downies these days
>>16860389I accept your concession and note your desperation.
>>16860388>Your next post will contain no attempts to prove it, eiSay some guy becomes rich, marries, has two kids, who also have two kids eachGrand total of 10 rich people, of which only one made money, and the rest simply married/inherited.Do i have to explain reproduction and inheritance to you?
>>16860396Notice how I correctly predicted your behavioral pattern. No evidence of your claim will be provided in the next post either. In fact, you'll probably just write another r/leftism rant addressed at your imaginary audience.
>>16860398Do you understand the concepts of reproduction and inheritance?
>>16860391here's my concession to (You), enjoy!
>>16860399>maybe if i repeat the same nonsequitur for the 5th timeOk, you're obviously either severely mentally ill or a bot. Moving on.
The psychopathic parasites here seem to love insulting the poor
>>16860340Nope.it is you repeating yourself. You just don’t like the evidence and are hoping for some confirmation. How is what I say against any particular hominid? I am attacking stupidity with money. Kant shared pants because he wasn’t so stupid. The same reason I drive a shit car and own five properties. Know what I do for a living? Nothing. You can choose not to be poor. Just do what people with money do. There’s no big scientific mystery to unveil.
>>16860809>Just do what people with money do. NTA but what if it means acting in a parasitical fashion (like (you)) and having bad personality traits (like (you))?
>>16860820>what ifBut it is not. Best business practices, in my opinion are to always be honest and more than fair. Great service and freebies are good advertising. I help to provide income and housing for single parents and people who would otherwise be in jail. I am able to give back to the community because of all the hard work and clever tricks I did to get here.
>>16860367>Most rich people simply inherit their moneyWrong.
>>16860849> Best business practices, in my opinion are to always be honest and more than fairI agree, but then we are left wondering why so few of the very rich people follow best business practices.
>>16860930I imagine they get to a point that they can afford not to, and are motivated to do so. In order to make new loopholes. That also cannot happen without stupid people tho. It s their own fault for buying three thousand dollar phone and seventeen dollar mcvalue meals. The rich only have the power that the stupid give them.
>>16860930billionaires use horoscopes millionaires laugh at them
Yes, and this science is called Marxism. It’s a fully logical, mathematically grounded theory that explains why the poor get exploited by the rich. It all started back in ancient times with slave-owning societies, when the strong took resources from the weak and built hierarchies. That might have worked in the short term, but over time, exploitation only intensified, and humanity didn’t evolve morally. Today, the rich aren’t just people with money-they control the means of production, companies, and technologies, which allows them to extract surplus value from other people’s labor without actually creating it themselves. Their main values are money, power, and competition for its own sake; for these, they’re willing to disregard the lives and well-being of others. Psychologically, the wealthy often judge people based on usefulness and profit, not as human beings. All of this makes their system corrupt: it’s built on exploitation, injustice, and increasing social inequality. You can draw your own conclusions.
Reminder.
>>16860060many such cases
>>16856065Sir, the free market just works. Consumerism breeds this stuff. Focusing on being intrinsically happy removes the need for external factors of happiness, and promotes conscientious spending for global welfare. Through trusts and inheritance, any dynasty is immortal, it is only through infighting, disrepair, or conquest that dynasties fall. 2 of these are violent and make the replacement no better.
>>16860207I'll try this one. A wage is a payment for productive contributions. A price is a penalty for consumption of production. Therefore poverty is the label for who produces no more than they consume.Tldr: Adam Smith
>>16860252Hinduism concludes that there are future lives. Buddhism is more empirical. The Blessed Master said that conjecture about creators and afterlives is only conjecture, and not verifiable by direct experience, and is therefore irrelevant to right conduct. Now in my personal cosmology, classical karma teachings of causality and reincarnation do a better job of conveying the importance of actions in the here and now. If a spirit decides to join my head part time, it's weight of ignorance will effect my emotional world, which will corrupt my thoughts, words, and actions. If I don't unite my mind, I will not be at peace with myself. And everything is fair because physics doesn't know good or evil. This doesn't stop compassion, but it makes it easy to remain aloof to people's suffering, because they hold to tradition more than logic, they bring suffering on themselves through the people they support.
>>16855686Yes. The Eternal Science of Marxism-Leninism.
>>16861090I'm on permanent full disability and I never worked a day in my life. I guess according to your retarded moral framework, that means I'm being paid for my "productive contributions", whatever you're about to tell me those are (you're wrong, I don't do jack shit, I just play video games and hang out in discord calls all day). And I do not live in poverty either. I have everything I could ever want and I'm very comfortable.Your argument is invalid.
>>16860293Or just developing the ability to plan for the future and save instead of buying expensive sneakers and candy
Anyone able to stay rich regardless of whether they inherited, won it by lottery or worked hard for it for any meaningful amount of time inherited the right genes for survival, personality traits are just a nice way of making everyone believe that their behaviours can be changed to fit their desires, and that hierarchies are unnatural, any other argument is cope by poor unproductive people-- and i don't mean not hardworking, but doing work that reaps meaningful rewards. And this is also not to say that people who are not rich did not also inherit good genes, but if you find yourself struggling relative to the next average person, then you might want to ask yourself whether the reason you are always bitter has to do with anyone else.
>>16861097>And everything is fair becauseYou are indian
