[dohboi]

Well, since I've argued that human extinction is at least possible, it's possible eventually that nobody (human that is) will ultimately get 'saved.'

Short term, short of Bernie's (or Jill's?) 'revolution,' it's hard to see how the rich don't manage to keep redirecting public funds into their private coffers till they've beggared all the rest of society.

In a remotely just world, of course, those who have done least to bring the problem on should be the first to get aid from disruptions. We do not seem to live in a just world, but we can fight for it.

Now, back to some light humor!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z4UPruzoKc

[Newfie]

I agree we do not live in a just world.

The reality is that, when face with personal extinction, each person will fight for his personal survival. The rich have more wealth resources. It is what it is.

[ralfy]

That's a nice fantasy for those who love to "hate the rich" and pretend like the wealthy all inherited their wealth or that they did nothing to earn their wealth because, as Obama stupidly opined, "You didn't build that."

However, in the real world, the vast majority of the people who live on riverbanks that get flooded again and again, only to have their homes cleaned up, repaired, or rebuilt as "necessary", courtesy of Uncle Sam, are the poor -- NOT the rich.

In the real world, the majority of the rich (I'll include the upper middle class here) got that way by (in the words of Ayn Rand) productive achievement. They DID build that, or worked a complex, competitive, stressful career for 40 or so years. Such people may well screw up once or twice, and may not be made whole by their insurance. (Witness how many beach houses have been destroyed by storms, and how many fancy houses in the brush have been burned down). Such tend to be the provinces of rich people.

Like it or not, rich people tend to be better educated and more able to draw on resources and adapt than poor people. When it becomes obvious that behavior like building beach houses is an economic disaster for the owner -- the rich folks will (mostly) cease doing that once they find it too expensive.

Meanwhile, the poor living in flood prone areas will tend not to move until forced (and someone else pays for it) -- because like it or not, because such behavior is strongly correlated with the poor. The people hanging out in an area devastated by Hurricane Sandy and refusing to move because they claim they can't afford it, for one example, are NOT, by and large, the rich.

I think he's referring to the poor worldwide, and he is right. They are generally forced to fend for themselves because they receive only minimal support from the rich.

The catch is that the rich actually need the poor to become wealthier, because expanding consumer markets is the ultimate guarantee of increasing income and returns on investment for the former. Increasing credit through financial speculation only leads to more economic instability.

In terms of survival, frugality is helpful. If one lives a life of luxury or is dependent on middle class conveniences, then there is a tendency that one will forget or not learn basic skills needed for survival and sustainability.

[ralfy]

No one is standing up for the rich man.

Some folks are pointing out how society works.

If you don't have a point the. It comes across as though you are just baiting so that you can cluck your tongue, so you can have folks to look down upon.

While it may not be a formal debating society it should be a polite exchange of ideas. It's not the heat of the kitchen, just civil adult discourse.

If you ask a question then you have some obligation to try to hear the answer and understand it.

So, once again providing the benefit of the doubt, what is your opinion on who gets saved?

I think rich people will be saved by the military and police only as long as credit is still considered valuable, while the poor will have to fend for themselves. However, at some point that credit will be considered worthless, and the armed will start preying on the weak, and then on each other.

[Newfie]

That's right Ralphy. Perhaps one could consider it just an extension of capitalisim. I think capitalisim "works" because it reflects our general outlook on life.

A while ago on the SLR thread I posted an article about Miami real estate. It started by acknowledging SLR and the challenges, that eventually Miami would be pretty mug under water. Then it went on to encourage developers to make the most of what they have now, build and sell, before the phone mic became aware and the market crashed. Not tongue in cheek or sarcastic, just a straight up genuine article.

My take away from that was "Save yourself."

Since I've become so jaded over the issue of motivating folks to change our ways I too have adopted a "save yourself" mentality. While I like to think I'm marginally better than those developers it's an arguable point.

So "Who gets saved??" Those who do the saving best.