/biz/ - Business & Finance

Theres nothing wrong with pitbulls you fucking bigots

>>18530181
why do niggers nig and faggots fag?

In the current situation people are poor mostly because money printing, technological deflation and outsourcing.

>>18530196
nigger dog

>>18530181
Fundamentally the first one, but I've seen it become a self- reinforcing feedback loop in a lot of people.

people are poor because they lack money

having no money and then not knowing what to do with money you do run into means you blow through it pretty fast on stuff you think is either what a monied person buys or what you think gets the job done.
Shitty processed foods that are actually more expensive, cool things you wanted, etc.

Having money, spending it, and learning the repercussions of having spent it is experience.
You need money to gain experience. That would be like needing to know how to drive but never sitting in the driver seat.

It is a recursive loop as >>18530899 was saying.

for instance, i spent obscene amounts of money on lunches during work, and now that im furloughed, I've managed to stretch out my food budget by cooking at home and its like feeding myself doesnt even put a dent into supply because I now have a managed and replenished surplus. Rather than having no food at home and having to work in the effort of not only cooking but buying all the bullshit.

Thats real world experience, friend

>>18530181

People are bad with money because they're dumb
People are born dumb
People are poor somewhat because of their fault, somewhat because of the way they were born

Ergo, claiming people are poor because they choose to be is retarded and shows you lack empathy, so you just as much have it coming if those poor people rise up and kill you as they choose to be poor.

>>18530181
>OP sucks dicks because he's a faggot?
>OP is a faggot because he sucks dicks

>>18530383
Lies. They’re poor because they leverage their assholes inside out. Go drive down a poor neighborhood and check out their vehicles. They swipe their credit card for candy and cigarettes. You ignant

#1. Hands down.

Talk to two different people: the poor idiot living check to check, and the stable upper middle class working professional, and you should immediately tell the difference in thought process and intelligence.

>>18530181
I see only two types of people :

Those who hold Unification

Non-UND'ers.

The rest will be history come 2021.

Debt and leverage are the reason why people are poor even though the world has some of the lowest poverty rates in history of mankind. Guaranteed the nignogs bought cigs and subwoofers instead of paying overdue rent. Democrats will be Democrats

>>18530181
both

>>18531514
Even those upper middle class are technically broke. They make 10k a month with 7k per month in bills and spend the rest on consumables. They’re left with only a 401k. They are not wealthy whatsoever. They’re on a path of perpetual slavery like the rest.

>>18531514
Two-digit IQ opinion

>>18531543

Whatever you say fag. I grew up in the former culture, it's awful. And I'm doing well for myself now. Poor idiots are poor idiots, I'm sorry reality hurts your feelings.

Even if it was #1, the question then becomes why are people bad with money.

Its not some sort of genetic thing that you're destined to be, which then leads us to what are the conditions that lead someone to being bad with money?

>>18531652
>Its not some sort of genetic thing
how do you know that

>>18531652

>It's not some sort of genetic thing

Why not? Wouldn't dumber people be more prone to dumber behavior with money (read: resources)? Where is this assertion coming from. "Poorness" is a relative metric, if you have a set group of 100 people all distributed evenly according to intelligence, wouldn't the top 25% and bottom 25% have starkly different outcomes in wealth? Why do libfags rage against this concept so hard

It's all relative. A poor in the US is still "rich" by Congolese standards.

>>18531652
It all hinges on the choice between having money and being poor, and most people will pick poor every time. Even if you spent a hundred hours explaining why it's good to have money a majority will choose to be poor. They can repeat back your points, and even reword them while still carrying the same idea. It's not like they can't understand, it's just a preference. 5 minutes is a whole 5 minutes away, but you can start being poor as fast as you want, and it only takes about the same effort. The real thinker is how many people are good with money. We understand why it's good here, but it's strange, they would deviate from the popular idea of poorness being better.

>>18530181
It's not a "one size fits all" reality.
Some people are poor because of retarded spending habits.
Some people never had chance except to be poor or commit crime.
Some people are completely fine with being poor for religious reasons or because their hobbies and family life make it worth it.
Some people are poor because other poor people degrade them for trying to escape poverty.
In Africa, it's definitely a thing where the one guy in the village with any drive to be be inventive or start a business ends up having someone in his family(extended family included) guilt tripping money out of his business.
In the high school I went to where I was one of the few white guys, there were a lot of guys that despite having jobs still had money problems because they blew the money on 300$ shoes & pot.

>>18531675
My position is the null hypothesis, if you want to make the claim that there is a genetic component to being bad with money then you'll have to argue it.

>>18531683
>wouldn't the top 25% and bottom 25% have starkly different outcomes in wealth
There's no reason to think they'd be starkly different. Of course it'd be a bell curve but you're just asserting that the bell curve distribution would reflect the intelligence distribution. It seems reasonable but we have no reason to think it true.

Lets think about a different scenario, if a group of 100 people were swimmers you'd expect them to map out to the same sort of random bell curve for how well they swim. Now apply a random distribution of resources to the group, lets say 70% get swimming training as a child, 40% grew up with a pool, 20% swam in high school and 5% have an olympic level coach and are rich enough so they can afford to practice all day. Does the bell curve look the same? Or does it drastically shift?

Now if you agree that resources drastically shift peoples placement in the bell curve why can't you apply that sort of reasoning to the skill of being good with money?

Why do retards such as yourself rage against the concept that resources are way more important than any genetic component? Everyone tacitly knows this to be true, thats why rich people shell out a huge amount of money so their kids can afford to go to the best schools, have the best private tutors etc.

>>18531675
Because he's low IQ, bad at everything except crime

>>18531760
Look at the people on the precious metal thread justifying a 100% premium, the people buying bankrupt companies, and options. They are not capable of understanding it's a suckers game and they are the mark

>>18531506
This

>>18531090
jimmy johns is so good tho