HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

February 03, 2007

HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

Who has a higher net worth?

Who are worth more as humans?

(hat-tip bozonian for the inspiration)

64 comments:

Anonymous said...: Who has a higher net worth?
The white family. They have the ability to eat at least.

Who are worth more as humans?
The white family. WTF does the other family have to offer to the world?; February 04, 2007 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...: The Indian (or whatever nationality she is) Lady because she doesn't have a mortgage and a leased car and college education and retirement to worry about. Her life and the babies are equally as valid as the blonde with the kids. Money doesn't determine your worth - people just think it does. A farmer is much more important than a Wall Street Exec; February 04, 2007 12:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Net Worth Definition:

For an individual, the value of a person's assets, including cash, minus all liabilities. The amount by which the individual's assets exceed their liabilities is considered the net worth of that person.; February 04, 2007 12:44 AM
FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...: My humble saying: "They have as much right to breath the air around them as I do the air around me."

We're here.

What ever else is up to the the person.

Some people see wealth as time spent in The Peace Core, or donations of medical treatment to the poorest of nation's people, in person. Others worship assetts and still others measur weath in academic acheivemnt.

Truly, the measure of weath is subjective, imo, and all humans have that control over their personal wealth.

The woman in the pic with the baby,
would she sell her child for a million, I think not. How do you measure that?

The American family? Typical, so nothing wrong with them either, except that they will be a minority in our culture soon. Doesn't make them more or less valuable.; February 04, 2007 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: ``A farmer is much more important than a Wall Street Exec''

Really? That's an unusual value judgment. Just because you don't understand what a Wall Street executive does, doesn't make it less valuble than a farmer. Next your going to tell us that beggars contribute more to society than computer programmers because you can't understand what programmers do...; February 04, 2007 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Boy Keith , I got to hand it to you ,you can really stir up the pot .In my view ,all the humans are worth the same .

If your lucky enough in life to be able to eat , get a job ,survive ,prosper,you were lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time ,(where ever that might be )

More important ,if your lucky enough to enjoy life ,and not worry about starving all the time ,you have been blessed .

People who are starving are not happy . People who are rich might not be happy either but at least they are not starving .

I'm not making a assumption that the Indian Lady is starving ,so don't get me wrong .For all I know the white family might be starving within a few months if their loan from Bank of America doesn't come .; February 04, 2007 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm normally a pretty big fan, but this is a little uncalled for.; February 04, 2007 3:20 AM
Anonymous said...: depends on where the bimbo lives, if it's OC Calif, then the Indian woman is probably worth more because all of the phoney OC idiots are under water now that their homes are worth less than their mortgages!; February 04, 2007 3:37 AM
Anonymous said...: "Who are worth more as humans?
The white family. WTF does the other family have to offer to the world? "

WTF does the white family have to offer the world by driving SUVs and wasting their money at Wal Mart to stuff their oversized McMansions with worthless crap that they will never use? The end resulst is a depletion in the world's supply of pertroleum and other precious resources causing other people, like the non-white family, to starve.

And people like you wonder why America is hated so much.; February 04, 2007 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: "A farmer is much more important than a Wall Street "

Very true! Unfortunatly, Wall Street execs and other snobs, like anon 12:22:26 do not see it that way. They should try living on a deserted island with wall street people and see just how far their stock trading "skills" get them in preventing them from starving.; February 04, 2007 3:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Neither. I have a higher net worth and I worth more as humans --- because I am an American. Any questions?!; February 04, 2007 4:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, what do you think?

If the top picture was of a poor Slavic family from eastern Europe/former USSR, then the top group would be equivalent and then it would be a question of political affiliations but since you'd decided to throw the race card into the fold, you've fed upon the collective conscious of mainstreamers that people of color are inferior to good white people of western nations.; February 04, 2007 4:13 AM
Anonymous said...: So by your def of net worth the woman in india has more...because she isn't over extended and under water on her home?; February 04, 2007 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Neither. It's the Americans. Any questions ?!; February 04, 2007 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: lol. both worth z3ro.; February 04, 2007 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Indian Street Beggar. Net worth: 0

Leveraged American Bubble House Owner:

Savings: 0
Credit Card Debt: -8000
Bubble House Losing Value: -100,000 net loss
Student Loans: -11,000
Total Net Worth: -119,000

Now you tell me, per the strict definition of net worth, whose is higher?; February 04, 2007 6:59 AM
Anonymous said...: the white family (i.e. soccer mom) maybe be upside down, lots of debt and negative savings. suzanne maybe their family friend.

the other family has got neither a debt nor savings. nada!; February 04, 2007 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Net worth of the white family is likely negative, owing tons of money for house, cars schools etc.

What they offer the world: skills as consumers, most likely.; February 04, 2007 9:12 AM
Anonymous said...: What a strange world when the lady with nothing to her name can have nothing and the lady with massive debts can have everything; February 04, 2007 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Though the post is provocative, it raises the point I've been making to many of my friends since I moved to Bombay from Toronto last fall. The average middle class Indian family is now wealthier than the average Western family due to Westerners' high debt load. It is astounding also that the average middle class Indian family now enjoys a better quality of life.; February 04, 2007 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...
Who has a higher net worth?
The white family. They have the ability to eat at least.

Who are worth more as humans?
The white family. WTF does the other family have to offer to the world?

Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:22:26 AM

--

I just can't understand why the rest of the world hates us. You are what's wrong with this country. What do YOU have to offer the world? Eternal debt, war and corruption!; February 04, 2007 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Some of you trolls obviously don't know math, because if the soccer family is in serious cc/house debt, then their net worth--even if the Indian (assuming she's Indian) sold two of her kids into debt slavery for $300US each--is less than the Indian woman's.

Yes, the absolute magnitude of the Western family is probably greater |Soccer Net Worth| > |Homeless Net Worth|. But absolute magnitude is not wealth! (Although, ala Trump in his downturns and Casey Serin, fabulous debts do fascinate us.) Net worth is not measured in absolute magnitude, therefore the greater net negative is LESS.

In terms of lifestyle, of course, the soccer family is doing much better. Why? Because (at least for now) their creditors are confident in their ability to service their debt.

Recall Janszen's discussion of the "monthly payment consumer"? The US gov't and individuals have gotten so confused, they think their ability to service their debt (at historically low rates of interest!) makes them solvent. NOT! When risk premiums eventually trend up, the soccer family could face a sudden, terrifying change in fortunes.

Meanwhile, beggar woman, assuming she doesn't piss off any soldiers or policemen, has nowhere to go but up. Maybe her cousin will get her a cleaning job at a rich person's house and she'll be able to save a little ... this is what poor people do overseas, and what they used to do here, before we came up with a system that tells our poorest that if they actually get a paying job, they'll lose their health care.

The height of absurdity is those health care programs to "help" the poor that insist you have no more than $2000 in savings. Spend all your savings, the gov't will take care of you! Don't get any ideas about not being poor any more! Uppity trash!

(Incidently, I believe in siphoning a bit off the top of very wealthy people's assets, esp. unearned income or major capital... But proper income distribution does not provide negative reinforcement for leaving welfare. This just fuels a black market and teaches some poor people that it's better to have no ambitions. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary program to ensure that small children have proper housing and nutrition, not a state of being.); February 04, 2007 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: "The Peace Core"

I think you meant the Apple Core, where young folks take a year out of their lives to do volunteer work for Steve Jobs.; February 04, 2007 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: "What a strange world when the lady with nothing to her name can have nothing and the lady with massive debts can have everything "

How true, this pretty much sums up the situation in the world today. Is this how it is from now on, is this the new reality, or is it temporary? Because I'm getting sick of living in a small, old apartment like a pauper and saving 70% of my income, and watching everyone else spend everything they make and then some and live in the lap of luxury in beautiful houses with new furniture, meanwhile their net worth on paper grows faster than mine (even though I earn more).; February 04, 2007 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: wiserent said . . .

"You are what's wrong with this country. What do YOU have to offer the world? Eternal debt, war and corruption!"

Who is the "you" in this comment? White people? Americans? Neither is responsible for eternal debt, war, and corruption. These are HUMAN problems, and have been around forever.

As for the world hating us, how interesting. Given the fact that the USA saved most of Europe twice, at a cost of millions of American lives, rebuilt Japan and Germany after WWII at a cost of billions of dollars, and provides more free food and free medicine to the Third World that all other nations combined (and this doesn't even count the contributions of USA charities that that also exceed the combined charitable gifts of all other nationalities combined) . . . Well, does the expression "biting the hand that feeds you" come to mind? If the USA stopped today, and the let everyone elsewhere take care of themselves, the entire world would collapse within a year (most within a few months).

Every time I see French protesters (mostly Muslim, by the way) marching against the USA, or British protesters (mostly Muslim, by the way) marching against the USA, etc., I wonder if the psychological phenomenon called projection isn't the primary factor at work. The pot calling the kettle black, only in this case, the kettle made the pot's existence possible. There would be no free France or UK today had the USA not gone to their rescue.

I don't defend this country's actions everywhere, always, but the apparent ingratitude of people constantly shocks me.

As for Keith's original, and stupid, questions, nobody can answer either. Judgements, opinions, and assumptions are not facts.

As for the anonymous who made the snide remarks that set wiserent off, I suspect he (possibly Keith?) was trying to create non-existent controversy.; February 04, 2007 3:57 PM
CZ75 said...: The American family, not only is their net worth higher, but their standard of living is as well. The East Indian's family pictured there could look just as nice as the American one, but India's civilization choose to live in poverty based on their religious preference…a stupid caste system which ensures poor people like the one pictured there will continue to have poverty in their families for centuries. People in India aren't poor because we(Americans) made them that way.; February 04, 2007 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Ask yourself this question:

Would you rather be picture a's neighbor or picture b's neighbor? Answer that and you'll answer who has a higher net worth.; February 04, 2007 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be nice if the posters on HP had the slightest clue about the true nature of "wealth". Wealth is not material, it's not entries on a balance sheet. No, economic wealth is control over the means of production. All this leftist ranting and conservative BS is irrelevant. Wealthy people throughout history and in many cultures learned that simple truth and leveraged that knowledge to achieve their goals.; February 04, 2007 4:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Because I'm getting sick of living in a small, old apartment like a pauper and saving 70% of my income,

But wait, I though renting a small old apartment was the way to live. I keep reading over and over how stupid I am for living in a big, new house. I am lectured about how smart it is to rent a decrpid apartment instead and saving every penny I earn.

So if that is such a great strategy why are you getting sick of it?; February 04, 2007 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: How do you value a life?

Do they not love, breath, eat, sleep, dream, bleed like anyone else?

I am an American!

This country, Blessed by God is ever slipping away from God and we will have to suffer the consequenses!
God Will Not Stay where his is not wanted or welcomed!
What one country or another does to it's people because of it's political bent is a travesty!
But our own country is driving us to the point of just another third rate dump!
Child molestors set free, run-amuck immigation, Free to worship as long as it is not Christianity!
Abortion on demand, but go to jail for spanking your out of control brat?
We were the land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Now were the co-op of the free(handout)
Greatest nation in the world! Build and protected by Blood and Guts....and a solid belief in a Creator.....not ourselves!
Every single time there is a natural disaster of one kind or another...We (America) are the first to be called for Help! Then we are S**T upon and told to leave!
We feed the world and pay for it as well!
So quit your whinning because you didn't get your latte today! Think of something besides yourself! Back your country, right or wrong!
Pray to God, believe in him, call upon him!"Call upon the name of the Lord, and you will be saved" It is not of ourselves all the time! There is (believe it or not) something greater than us!; February 04, 2007 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: @3:47

But there's hope... over the next few years you'll be sitting pretty while all that bubblelicious house wealth vanishes into thin air...

Of course, you'd better hope you have some inflation hedges, because we might see some inflation to reduce the debt burden. Forewarned is forearmed.; February 04, 2007 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I will answer the question with another question.

If the two families switch places, which ones will still be happy?

There is your answer.; February 04, 2007 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: When Alexander the Great was coming to India, he met one strange man, Diogenes. It was a winter morning, a cool breeze was blowing, and Diogenes was lying on the riverbank, taking a sunbath, naked. He was a beautiful man--when there is a beautiful soul, a beauty arises which is not of this world.
He had nothing, not even a begging-bowl, because one day when he was going toward the river with his begging bowl to get some water to drink, he saw a dog rushing to the river. The dog jumped in the river and drank--Diogenes laughed and he said, "This dog has taught me a lesson. If he can live without a begging bowl, then why can't I?" He threw the begging-bowl, he also jumped like the dog in the river and drank. Since then he had had nothing.
Alexander had never seen such a graceful man, such utter beauty, something from the unknown.... He was in awe and he said, "Sir..." He had never said "Sir" to anybody in his life. He said, "Sir, I am immensely impressed by your being, and I would like to do something for you. Is there something that I can do for you?
Diogenes said, "Just stand to the side because you are blocking the sun--that's all. Nothing else do I need."
Alexander said, "If I have another chance to come to the earth I will ask God, instead of making me Alexander again, to make me Diogenes."
Diogenes laughed and he said, "Who is preventing you right now? You can become a Diogenes. Where are you going? For months I have seen armies moving and moving--where are you going? and for what?"
Alexander said, I am going to India to conquer the whole world."
"And then what are you going to do?" Diogenes asked.
And Alexander said, "Then I will rest."
Diogenes laughed again and he said, "You are mad--because I am resting now, and I have not conquered the world. I don't see the necessity of it. Who has told you that before resting, you have to conquer the world? And I tell you: if you don't rest now, then you never will. Something or other will always remain to be conquered... and time is fleeting. You will die in the middle of your journey--everybody dies in the middle of the journey."
And Alexander died in the middle. When he was moving back from India, he died on the way. And that day he remembered Diogenes. Only Diogenes was in his mind--he could never rest in his life, and that man rested.; February 04, 2007 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: The name of the Lord? Which name? Which lord? Virtually every culture on Earth has a Prime Mover, a supreme god. Even Buddhism, which denies the existence of a meddling, self-conscious god, does acknowledge a First Cause.

Americans are more religious than most people, but hardly more spiritual. Also, if God is everwhere, IT can't abandon us; It is we, and we are It. The Judeo-Christian concept of "God" simply reflects the thinking of Middle Eastern fanatics thousands of years ago; The Muslim clerics we today regard as crazy are no different from the Old and New Testament writers who envisioned "God" as a mega-sheikh, treating humans as pawns and slaves. God as a slave-driver and child-abuser? I'm not buying it.

However, my original comment stands: The USA does more for the entire world, than the entire world does for the USA or any other country, people, or culture, and if the recipients of our generosity want to hate us in return, this reflects babdly on them, not on us.

I remember when Europeans spoke of the "Ugly American:" the rude, flashy, America who bragged about everything, threw money around, and regarded Europeans as primitives. Today, the Ugly European has replaced him as the ultimate ass.; February 04, 2007 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Most 3rd worlders are of no value to mankind. What will they create or invent or manufacture?
Their over-breeding will destroy the world. C'mon bird flu. AIDS doesn't seem to be all we hoped for.; February 04, 2007 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: All people are of equal value.

The spirit that inhabits that soccer mom is exactly the same type of spirit that inhabits the woman in the other picture.

A parapalegic beggar in Calcutta who pulls himself along on a sled has the same worth as George Bush.

The only difference is George Bush is creating negative karma while the beggar is not.; February 04, 2007 5:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Everyone suffers, not everyone suffers the same.; February 04, 2007 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: "Who has a higher net worth?"

The individual who CARES and would like to make a DIFFERENCE in the world.; February 04, 2007 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:45:08 AM said:

Very true! Unfortunatly, Wall Street execs and other snobs, like anon 12:22:26 do not see it that way. They should try living on a deserted island with wall street people and see just how far their stock trading "skills" get them in preventing them from starving.

Hmmm. This is a quite interesting argument. So are you saying that the entirety of human worth can be defined by a situation that a vast majority of us will never find ourselves in?

A fireman is more valuable than a farmer because what would a farmer do if my apartment was on fire??? Plant seeds??? I think that the probability that my apartment catches fire is orders of magnitude more than the chance that I'll be stranded on an island, so the fireman must be more valuable.

Now, what if I need to find a guarantor to help me rent a Manhattan apartment? Then the Wall Street Executive would be much more valuable. A fireman couldn't help me in that way because he probably doesn't make a quarter mill a year.

What if I construct an argument like the anon to whom I am replying? Then perhaps a rhetoritician would be a more valuable human being because neither a farmer who can only plant seeds or a fireman who can only put out fires could point out the critical flaws in my reasoning. Oh, wait, maybe the farmer might be able to point out the flaws in the argument. And maybe the wall street executive might be able to subsistence farm. Kinda strange that people frequently have more than one skill.

In answer to the question at hand of human worth, it is a malformed question. People do not have any intrinsic worth. Things like this depend on context. The closest thing that I'd suggest is how replaceable the person is. E.g., Richard Feynman would be incredibly difficult to replace. A farmer would be a lot easier to replace. A wall street exec falls somewhere in the middle, although closer to Feynman than the farmer...; February 04, 2007 6:35 PM
blogger said...: The correct answer:

IF the soccer mom has debts that are greater than her assets, and the Indian mom has no assets and no debt, the Indian mom has a greater net worth. Period.

And as to who has greater value? All humans have exactly the same value.

Pretty obvious answers, wouldn't you say?; February 04, 2007 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The white family has ultimately more net worth.

That Indian woman and her infant cannot provide the services required to make so many other people so happy.

The white woman provides tax money squandered by politicians to provide free health care, housing, education, legal defence, and other misc services for the ungrateful, spunging underclass.

Not only is she doing this blindly, she was dumb enough to replicate her very giving genetic stock twice more in the form of 2 more giving females. They too will be equally clueless.

Through thick or think, feast or famine, that white woman and her children after her will work. She migh lose her house, her car, her cell phone, but she will have a job some where some how. And she will be taxed.

She works for her kids to have a better future.

She also works so Mexican nationals can jump tall fences and break their arms on the way down into American and be wisked away to the local hospital for healing for free.

She also works so young urban africans can get food stamps to eat, and public schools so they can learn if they so choose to.

She also works so the corporate culture can downsize her when they want to slash their budget.

She also works so the State of Israel can have US military hardware at discount prices.

She also works so politically connected families can rich selling her gasoline at budget breaking prices so she can get to work and get taxed.

The Indian woman cannot compare to the giving that the White Woman does.; February 04, 2007 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "And as to who has greater value? All humans have exactly the same value. "

The beggar woman is in a society which regards her as a derelict with no place in life. The soccer "USA" mom is in a society which thinks that she's an essential component of the axis which comprises our civilization. The reality is if there were no societies and it was one world system then perhaps both women would be at the same level but until then, these distinctions do exist and will persist.; February 04, 2007 7:38 PM
Anonymous said...: "So are you saying that the entirety of human worth can be defined by a situation that a vast majority of us will never find ourselves in?"

This is true to some extent.

There are people, with dysfunctional parents, who're successful and balanced in life and others, with decent parents, who can't tie their own shoelaces.

Well, if you substitute one person's parental situation for the other, the former may be a President of a company or state while the latter, a suicide statistic. The useless person, with the decent parents, may never experience that level of childhood abuse needed to induce the suicide outcome while the effective individual may never of had the nurturing/support needed to pursue his dream of running for governor or starting a Fortune 500 company but instead, spent his time just getting on his own two feet and making a decent living for himself w/o his immediate family ruining it for him.; February 04, 2007 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: " Just because you don't understand what a Wall Street executive does, doesn't make it less valuble than a farmer."

What is there to understand?
If every corporate shyster on the planet dies, this effects me how?
If every farmer drops dead, we all starve starting in less than a week.; February 04, 2007 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: The rich will always be with us.; February 04, 2007 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: "In my view ,all the humans are worth the same."

To which I say liar liar pants on fire!!
Cindy Crawford knocks on your door asking to borrow $10 for a cab fare, would you lend her the $10?
Hell yes you would, the braggin rights alone would be worth that.
Now the same $10 to the stinky mad woman with all the cats?
I suggest not, what say you?; February 05, 2007 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Who has a higher net worth:

Indian woman: $2
White family: -$250,000

hmm....

As for the other question... I'll still say the white family, but in that case the worth is mostly "potential" rather than "real".; February 05, 2007 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE POOR!; February 05, 2007 3:46 AM
Anonymous said...: There will always be poor; February 05, 2007 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Gee...I owe 725k on my house,

52k on my new Hummer,

225k on my vacation condo.....

That's a total of over 1 million

I guess I'm worth more!!; February 05, 2007 3:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Budvar in italics:

If every corporate shyster on the planet dies, this effects me how?

Well, let's see. I think that the original comment was about Wall Street executives, not ``corporate shyster''s. The latter category includes some of the former and many additional people who do not work on Wall Street. An explanation is probably in order. Wall Street is a street in lower Manhattan which is one of the five boroughs of New York City. Granted most ``Wall Street Executives'' do not actually work on Wall Street these days, but the appellation generally implies investment banking. Sometimes people will use it to denote commercial banking as well, but they are logically quite distinct activities.

Investment banking is an integral part of the system that we have set up for the allocation of capital to endevours that might produce future value but for which the participants currently lack the funds to pursue. An example of this might be a farmer who would like to make a large capital expenditure on, say, a large amount of farm equipment and salaries for farm hands on the expectation of being able to recoup the investment in the coming year's harvest. Without commercial and investment banking, said farmer might not be able to make said capital expenditure and hence would have to grow less food until he could save the money to purchase the equipment. I am sure that you can see where we are going with this.

If every farmer drops dead, we all starve starting in less than a week.

Yes, but there is the concept of replaceability. Farming, a skill that humankind learned millenia ago is quite frankly simpler than investment banking. And so farmers are more replaceable than investment bankers. And hence less valuable.

If every farmer dropped dead, then the surviving people would learn how to farm. Same goes for the investment bankers. A more apt question to ask would be ``What would happen if all people capable of learning skill X dropped dead?''. In the case where X == farming, then we'd all just die because pretty much any of us can learn how to farm. In the case where X == investment banking the question becomes more complex because not everyone could learn how to be an investment banker. A lack of investment bankers would hamper companies large and small as their access to capital in exchange for either equity or debt would disappear. This would have a large number of follow on effects which might include a huge number of you starving...

Again, just because you don't understand what they do does not mean that it does not have any value.; February 05, 2007 5:46 AM
Anonymous said...: What exactly does a wall street executive create?; February 05, 2007 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: The world can survive without Wall Street execs. The world cannot survive without farmers.; February 05, 2007 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Where the fuck do you people come from? Pathetic cockroaches...; February 05, 2007 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: In all honesty, I MIGHT pay the white chick a 20 to give me a lap dance- if she did a good job.

The Indian lady, I would probably just give her the 20.; February 05, 2007 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: WTF does the white family have to offer the world by driving SUVs...

If I had to pay SUV prices for SUV fuel consumption, the last thing I'd buy would be an SUV. Instead, for that price I'd be driving a fully-restored Sixties muscle car!

'65-68 Mustang, '67-68 Cougar/Camaro/Firebird, '65-67 GTO, '67-69 Charger, Roadrunner, 'Cuda, Hemi-Cuda...; February 05, 2007 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do you all assume the hottie has debt and the Indian doesn't?; February 05, 2007 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I am going to have say white societies are of greater value (based on desirability), and assuming the pictured people are representative, that the white family is also more desirable, and therefore valuable.

Poor societies are poor because 1) they have low average IQ's and 2) because they are very corrupt. Occasionally a society will be poor because it has a far worse government than it deserves, notably North Korea, China, and previously, the Soviet Union.

White societies are screwing up big time, and may very well be terminally ill. But by almost every standard they still shine compared to third world countries.

quote: "If every farmer dropped dead, then the surviving people would learn how to farm."

Have you heard of what is happening in Zimbabwe? It takes a fair amount of intelligence, planning and stable governance to run farms with the kind of productivity we expect in the west.

PS The average white family still has a positive net worth. It's only the twentysomethings that may have a negative net worth on average, mostly due to the cost of a college education skyrocketing.; February 05, 2007 10:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Fuck the rest of the world!

The English-speaking peoples of the world offer civilization or a model of it, along with prosperity.

Just because we have to babysit a bunch of savages every 5 to 10 years does not make the US a warmongering country.

Liberals suck!; February 06, 2007 12:50 AM
Anonymous said...: You cannot separate the value from the valuer.

To the Indian woman, if that's really her nationality, is the most valuable person in the world, or her baby is.

To the American woman, she or her children or husband are the most valuable person or people in the world.

There cannot be any consumption without production and those that consume the most are those that would have to at some point, produce the most.

If your value is that people who consume the least are the best for the planet, as per environmentalist ideology, then dead people are the best for the planet. They consume nothing, take up only a small amount of space, and provide fertilizer for plants and meat for worms.; February 06, 2007 12:58 AM
Anonymous said...: The Indian woman looks greedily at the child since she can either eat it or sell it in the market for a bowl of rice.; February 06, 2007 1:00 AM
Anonymous said...: What did either of these two groups of people ever do for Mongolia?; February 06, 2007 2:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Like white soccer moms have anything to offer the world except bad driving in hellaciously big vehicles with cell-phones stuck to their heads, spreading malicious gossip and all around uselessness as they sit around doing nothing.

Whether there's a dollar amount; the third world mother and daughter can be hired for a very low price for cheap labour.

Soccer-mom and company? They'll just cost you lots of money in credit card bills buying lattes, gadgets and pedicures.; February 06, 2007 2:21 AM
Anonymous said...: The rich and the poor, God is maker of them all.

Leave the judgement of people to their maker...Oops, there's some of that crazy Christian thinking again, can't have that can we Keith?
Here's a question for you K;
Over the years who has provided more charitable help to the world's poor?

a) Governments.
b) Self-hating white liberal atheists.
c) Christian private citizens.

K I suspect that you belong to category b, they must love you over in Europe.; February 06, 2007 8:51 AM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

February 03, 2007

HousingPANIC Stupid Question of the Day

64 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive