After reading this I have to say that I've never been more conflicted logically than I am now. Let me explain why:
I truely believe that productivity cannot be boiled down like some of you are trying to make it seem. Money is passed in transactions and whether you think it contributed to society or not is irrelavent because a person makes a conscious decision to gamble and whether you are "damaging" them or not isn't the point. A person has the right to gamble and having that right alone is important regardless of the consequences. So you can't blame a system's productivity when it's restiction would be a far worse thing for your freedom as a person.
However, I just recently went to a casino for the first time, and I can say in all honesty that I've never seen a more depressing place in my entire life. There's something that it just so disgusting to me seeing a row of 12 65 year old women pulling a lever for 5 hours a day. I didn't play one game, I just stood there with my beer and watched my friends lose money all night. The place made me sick.
So while I think the whole "this job or that job is bad for society" is bullshit, I can see how a person can become jaded after living a life that is consumed by gambling.
I hope you find your way to a lifestyle that makes you happy Dan. The irony is that we all value our freedom so much, but what most of us really want is to have something to be responsible for.
On September 03 2005 07:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: don't get me wrong anyone, I most certainly understand why people would play poker. it's really really easy money and well, it's fun as well, and those who are good make more money than they can possibly otherwise do at their age.
and a sad fact of life is that money is pretty important at least for most people. and I can't deny that I enjoyed hardly spending a dollar in holland. I'm really not judging people for playing poker and it doesn't make me lose respect or whatever for people who do.
BUT, I think the extreme upswing in poker players we have seen in the past 5 years is a very, very negative trend that to me symbolizes the extreme greed in our society today which I find a very bad thing.
This is how I feel. Especially the last paragraph... maybe Naz won't think I'm trolling if I just quote it
Very interesting post as usual Rekrul. I'd like to weigh in on the money/happiness issue.
I was raised in a fairly wealthy household, for most of my life I have been extremely well provided for. I've always had the best private schools (although I did my last years of highschool in public school), have been driven in some of the best cars, have lived in beautiful homes and have travelled the world. I know what it is to have money.
I remember one day, my father and I had just gone to a store to get something, and I was still in my school uniform. In the town we were in, my school is known for being a rich kid playground (tuition was as much as a top university). There was a lady and her daughter sitting in their car, eating. They saw me and my dad getting into his very nice, expensive car. I was able to lip read exactly what was said as they both looked us, me in my prep school uniform, my dad in a bespoke italian suit; Daughter (paraphrased) "Wow, must be nice to be rich like them". Mom (immediately after) "Yea, but they might not be happy".
I hate this, and I think it is a fallacy that needs to be corrected. A lot of people with little income or personal wealth like to make themselves feel better about having less by assuming and convincing themselves that wealthy people are unhappy (just like how some rich people like to think they are better than "poor" people on the basis that they have more money, which is also BS). I know a lot of wealthy people, ranging from comfortably wealthy to people you find on lists of the world's most wealthiest individuals. Among all of those people, there are the same amount of happy and unhappy people as there would be if you sampled the many people of normal income/wealth that I know.
Wealth and happiness are two different things that affect each other based on how you obtain your wealth. If you were born into it, you might have personal fulfillment problems, because you feel you never earned it. Being a trust fund baby gets old fast, I have seen it happen. Lawyers and CEOs sometimes work themselves to death to maintain to their wealth. In that case, they may not be happy. With more wealth comes more stress over certain issues, but that doesn't automatically mean unhappiness.
I am taking a different path than my parents. I saw them unhappy at one stage for about 2-3 years, when my dad was working 9-9 almost every day, and often had to work on christmas and other holidays (the only day he refused to work was on my mom's birthday). When my mother started working again, and they both agreed to keep hours to a minimum (home for dinner by 4:30), I can honestly say that they are two very happy people. Funny enough, this happened when I left for university... I was always a handful, but I do hope that my absence is not the reason for their happiness.
If you want to be happy and wealthy, you need to decide what makes you happy, and what you consider wealth to be. Many people in the 200,000-1,000,000 yearly income range work 71% of their lives (5 days a week) to actually "live" for only 2 days. That can get very taxing. So, in order for them to balance out everything, they need to buy ultra luxurious homes, and cars beyond their means. Not to mention cottages, summer homes, and all those things.
My dad explained to me, and I very much agree, that if you actually really love what you do, you require less income. I will admit that I would probably become depressed if I couldn't continue to live the life to which I have grown accustomed to, but in the current path I'm taking, I won't need as much money as my parents. Most business people, lawyers, doctors etc... go into their jobs loving it. Some have idealistic reasons for doing it. However, if you work in the private sector, it's dollars you're ultimately after. After a while, and I have seen few exceptions to this, work becomes work. You cease to actually enjoy it, and you'd rather go on vacation than go to work. Luckily if you're wealthy, the small amount of time you aren't working can be very relaxing and rewarding.
I am going into the music business, because I really enjoy music more than anything else. There is hard work, but at the end of the day, I'd be doing what I love. Would I love a measure of financial success? Yes, but I do believe that one can live a fairly lavish lifestyle on a low 6 figure income, which is quite possible in what I am going to do.
So in the end, decide what you really want. Money will not buy happiness, but my family and I were broke as hell when we came to Canada, after having lived in the lap of luxury in our home country. I know what it's like on both ends (although I've never lived a life of abject poverty, nor a life of a total jet setter billionaire), and I can tell you that money helps. It's just a question of finding a good balance.
On September 03 2005 07:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: don't get me wrong anyone, I most certainly understand why people would play poker. it's really really easy money and well, it's fun as well, and those who are good make more money than they can possibly otherwise do at their age.
and a sad fact of life is that money is pretty important at least for most people. and I can't deny that I enjoyed hardly spending a dollar in holland. I'm really not judging people for playing poker and it doesn't make me lose respect or whatever for people who do.
BUT, I think the extreme upswing in poker players we have seen in the past 5 years is a very, very negative trend that to me symbolizes the extreme greed in our society today which I find a very bad thing.
This is how I feel. Especially the last paragraph... maybe Naz won't think I'm trolling if I just quote it
And I, for the most part, agree with that. The fact that there's more poker players doesn't mean society becomes more greedy though. It simply means us greedy fuckers have found a new means to obtain wealth. Nothing new there, society is as fucked up as it always has been.
Greed at the same time shows humans care about money. The fact that we're all greedy is old news. It's why communism failed in Russia, and at the same time the reason why our current society has survived. Capitalism should (in my opinion) be combined with socialism, which is why we pay taxes. Now do everyone a favor and make sure America gets a decent welfare system. That's a whole lot more important than some card game.
Well to be fair, communism failed in Russia because of widespread disillusionment with the Communist oligarchy, coupled with the power conflict between the political networks of the USSR and the Russian Federation. The actuality of economic policy had little to do with this disillusionment, as material conditions were far better in the USSR than the post-Soviet Russian Federation. It failed because of the collapse of faith in the system following the liberalization of the country. Had Gorbachev never implemented Glasnost and Perestroika, there is no reason to think that the USSR would have collapsed at all, even if they may have withdrawn their stranglehold over Eastern Europe eventually.
I think it is a mistake the condense the argument to Western greed > Eastern socialism. Besides the fact that greed will never be morally superior to generosity, there is no reason to believe that it is more common in human nature either.
P.S. I just realized the above made me sound like a Red sympathizer. I suppose I should not care about small vanities like this, but just to add: I am not. I just dislike the generic interpretation of the collapse of the Soviet Union as the triumph of human greed (or worse, of capitalism)
Many people in the 200,000-1,000,000 yearly income range work 71% of their lives (5 days a week) to actually "live" for only 2 days. That can get very taxing. So, in order for them to balance out everything, they need to buy ultra luxurious homes, and cars beyond their means. Not to mention cottages, summer homes, and all those things.
I am going into the music business, because I really enjoy music more than anything else. There is hard work, but at the end of the day, I'd be doing what I love. Would I love a measure of financial success? Yes, but I do believe that one can live a fairly lavish lifestyle on a low 6 figure income, which is quite possible in what I am going to do.
Throughout your post, Storm_Liquid, I got the impression that you're trying to say having luxuries makes one a happier person than the individual with fewer luxuries and a more modest lifestyle. I disagree with this, as does the research.
(if you didn't intend that at all, well at least this post will be informative for those who do think that way)
Did you know that people in the US are making more than twice as much money (inflation taken into account) now than they did 50 years ago, on average? Do you think that this has made them happier as well, on average? It has not: people still rate their happiness the same as they did 50 years ago, on average (actually it's a little lower now than it was back then).
The same effect can be seen spread across many countries of varying wealth: those with more wealth and more luxuries still rated their happiness the same as those with less. There is an obvious exception though: people with not enough money to sustain themselves (e.g. broke) are much less happy. But above that level of poverty, money does not affect happiness.
Each person has a "neutral" level of happiness and their level of happiness always tends towards it. Buy a new bigscreen TV and your level of happiness rises quickly, then slowly falls until it's back to where it was before you made your purchase. You simply get used to luxuries over time, requiring you to continually buy new things in order to sustain your elevated level of happiness.
Lastly, there is one more thing I would like to note: a person's level of happiness if affected by the surrounding people, and whether they are better-off or worse off than said person. Two people with the same level of income will feel vastly different levels of happiness if one compares himself to rich people and the other compares herself to poor people.
So, what can we conclude from all of this? Living a lavish lifestyle won't make you any happier than the mid-5-figure income family and their modest lifestyle, on average. Furthermore, most people (this isn't fact but I'm guessing it's true) maintain an elevated level of happiness by continually buying new, relatively-better things. The modest family's vacations or new things aren't nearly as expensive as those of the lavish family, but the modest family's typical day is also filled with less expensive things. Similarly, the modest family is likely surrounded by other modest families, so they compare themselves to other people of a modest income, whereas the lavish family compares themselves to people of a lavish income. In the end, the fact that these new vacations and new toys are better relative to their usual lifestyle is all that matters, not the price tag.
Spending money on luxuries is like smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol: the more you do it, the bigger amounts you need to use in order to achieve the same effect. So in a way, being rich is actually a vice. Ever notice how easy babies and young children are to entertain? Wouldn't it be empowering to be so easily entertained at our own age? You would never need to buy anything even close to "luxurious" and still be a very happy individual. This extends to upper class vs middle class as well: the upper class individual pays orders of magnitude more than the middle class individual yet achieves an equivalent boost in happiness. And as I said in one of my earlier posts, hoarding all that wealth utlimately hurts those in poverty, so there IS a good reason to be able to maintain the same level of happiness for a lower cost.
My dad explained to me, and I very much agree, that if you actually really love what you do, you require less income.
In contrast to what your father said, if you have fewer, less expensive possessions then you will require less income. I think that if you, Storm_Liquid, try to live a lifestyle that is more modest than the one you're accustomed to, then yes it will feel depressing at first, but over time, as long as you don't keep comparing it to the way your life was before, you will grow accustomed to it and in the long run you'll feel just the same. I strongly agree that having an enjoyable job will make your life much happier, but I disagree with the idea that you can somehow compensate for having a boring job by buying more expensive things. If a person picks a boring occupation, then they're screwed no matter how much money they make.
An already happy person will be happier with luxuries. That is all I am saying. You have to be happy in the first place. But I do believe that a few nice things or conveniences can make your life better, if even marginally.
I disagree about workhorses not being able to compensate with luxuries. I realize that this is anecdotal, but I know scores of word hard, play hard CEOs who maximize their off time by having every toy imaginable. It's hard to really plot how happy/unhappy one is.
I see what you are saying about cutting down, but to me it isn't about materialism as much as it is an appreciation of certain things. I could do without a lot of things, but that doesn't mean if I could have them that I'd refuse.
Now do everyone a favor and make sure America gets a decent welfare system. That's a whole lot more important than some card game.
I know, I know, I am doing whatever I can. Unfortunately, stupid people breed faster than smart ones, so I can't seem to help enough to get any of my fellow libs to win an election But hey, I didn't know you cared so much about the welfare of Americans... aren't we just here to win money off?
you are! but one must find its balance. so while we are taking your money you must also get a good welfare system. thats what we give you in return for your $
lemme tell you something i learned back in nam, money takes away all your problems. Without problems you have nothing left to do other than look at yourself, and then you realise how fucked up you are.
poker is a legitamite way for those born without certain socioeconomic advantages (read: not white and male and in north america) to circumvent oppression by redistributing wealth in a broken (hi cayman islands), but more advantageous manner to themselves
how many CEOs of fortune 500 companies are asian
to what extent are they under-represented in senior management
consider the degree by which they are emasculated on a daily basis by women who subconsciously (arguably instinctively) refuse to relinquish the ability to cheat with ease
most women don't cheat, but they don't want to give up the option to do so as it's a method by which they solicit compliance from a mate
i have the capacity to do anything i want with my life and choose to not play their broken game
i love writing but it's far too painful a process for me i'm too senstive to subject myself to the direct pain of others (law enforcement, medical work etc) the grind of office works kills me inside
so i play a broken game of my choosing and fully embrace the risks involved
i'd rather run a brokerage or consult
i can't do that now, or in the forseeable future and it's probable that any available career path chosen will not lead to the desired favorable outcome
money fixes alot of problems while creating others i'm learning how to manage the problems i'm creating
what i'm attempting to do is definitely possible. it's also exceedingly rare and insanely difficult.
On September 02 2005 03:40 travis wrote: i don't believe in social responsibility, that's total bullshit.
I believe in ethics, but suggesting that when you are born you're in debt to society is retarded.
you can't believe in ethics when u're playing poker, that's the problem of this game. There are three kind of peoples in poker, people who play for fun, people who are playing serious poker and loosing, people who are playing serious poker and taking money for the first two categories.
Being a last categorie guy is not ethical, u're giving more problems to some guys that don't need it... When a loosing player is on tilt, going all the time allin, when u just push with aces, u're taking profit from him.. They are really stupid guys that play poker, loose money in it, and take loans to try to win.. is it ethical to keep playing against them?
it's not. But who would still be here playing poker, trying to improve his strategies if there were nothing to win? poker is not ethical
Some stuff here is ridiculous, i'll point out a few of my problems with this:
People are comparing things in life such as professional sports to poker, poker does involve an element of risk (you cannot deny this because people lose too, even the best). However, overall they win.
In professional sports which do not involve money so much (i.e. football and so on), this is much different because these people are paid because of 1. Fans LOVE watching them play and buy tickets and various items to show their love for the club. And of course, 2. TV Broadcasting companies want to show their shows on TV, so they pay for the rights to show the games on their channel, which is funded by advertisements from other companies.
For the individual player in these sports its not about winning or losing, they get paid and its basically a job. Poker is much different because there is always the possibility you will lose your money. This possibility is real since its a gamble (even though its very unlikely with proper risk/bankroll management). Also, football and other such sports arent based on 'good cards' and so on. They gain money all the time.
Another thing i find ridiculous is the notion that we could turn everyone into poker players. This simply wouldn't work for obvious reasons, namely people need to hunt for food and so on. Also, people going along with this forget that its totally flawed because a poker player isnt like a single use appliance in that its only got one use. Im sure poker players can do more things than just play poker. Hunting is instictive as are many other things which are BASIC for our survival. Anyone can do this (assuming well people). Poker is leisure. No matter what anyone says this is the case and you simply must accept it. The idea behind gambling is that you have money which you enjoy SPENDING by taking risks. If you win, its an added bonus.
Personally i don't share this view, but it is the correct one. I look at poker from a pure skill perspective, if i lost all the money i had tomorrow i would be angry for a while sure but i would accept it because of all i had learned about psychology, reading people and most of all how compulsive people act in situations.
Also, If everyone was a firefighter it wouldn't matter because:
1. There would be no fires to put out
and of course,
2. What would there be to gain from being a firefighter?
They would have two options in life, which are:
1. Remain an obsolte firefighter
OR
2. Find something else to do (eventually it would lead to a society that we have right now, which is of course the most natural and logical to us and one which works).
The two ideas are similar because both situations would lead to a total rebuild of society, however they don't apply for this very same reason.
Also, most people here are forgetting that firefighers, police officers and doctors etc... public services if we trace them back to when they first became, we can say that these were because people needed fires to be put out, people to be kept in line and doctors to help people to heal.
Through time, methods have been made which help people to fight fires, police people and heal people.
My view on poker is simple:
Your simply there to skim a bit off the top, if you understand.
You aren't there to make anyone unhappy or stop anyones fun with gambling, your simply there to win a few pots every now and again then you can do something with the money. Its less risky this way, there are of course nutters who play this game and it is most definitely not a 'sport' in the regular sense of the word. It's a game.
EPT
But hey, I didn't know you cared so much about the welfare of Americans... aren't we just here to win money off? 
