I'm watching the Godfather Trilogy ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

(while nursing a hang-over) and a particular exchange of dialogue jumped out at me.

Sonny's niece has come with her fiancé to ask Sonny's permission for them to marry. Sonny asks the fiancé if he had attended college and the fiancé tells him "Yes, I'm going to Duke, studying Fine Arts."

Sonny asks the fiancé how he plans to support his niece with a degree in Fine Arts?

The fiancé says, "I'm almost embarrassed to admit it; but, I am a major share-holder in my families corporation."

Sonny replies, "Don't ever apologize for you wealth. This contempt for wealth is a trick by the rich to keep the poor from pursuing it."

I loved it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. ...

[linuxman]

2. Worked well enough on most of DU.

I make no bones about it; I want to be rich. Rolling acres of green for a front yard, kept up by people I pay to do it, stocked bar in the library, kitchen bigger than your livingroom, kids' college and grad school taken care of, private range out back, car I drive purely for pleasure, income bearing businesses about town, retire with peace of mind rich.

It's good to have ambitions. Even if you fall short, you're usually better off than where you started. Too many people have this "well fuck em', who wants all that anyway?" attitude. Most people, frankly. My wife and I are working towards it. God wiling we'll get there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I'll tell ya ...

I have no problem with those with that, "well fuck em', who wants all that anyway?" attitude. But that's NOT what I'm hearing these days ... I'm hearing, "I don't have it so NO ONE should have it!"

I do have a problem with that.

[linuxman]

4. True enough.

Some truly are of that mindset, but I find there are many more who claim to feel that way than really do. For those that are sincere, good for them. Different strokes and all that.

There's a contingent here who seem to have the "If they have it and I don't, they fucked me out of it!" attitude. Oddly, those types never seem to examine their own position compared to those with less than them in the same light.

[Hortensis]

5. Yup.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Funny ...

There's a contingent here who seem to have the "If they have it and I don't, they fucked me out of it!" attitude. Oddly, those types never seem to examine their own position compared to those with less than them in the same light.

But,of course they (that contingent) worked hard and EARNED what they have!

On a,possibly, unrelated note ... There was a recent study that found that the white working class sees the diversification of America, i.e., civil rights gains, as a zero sum phenomena.

[linuxman]

11. Very few things in this world are zero sum.

Money, courtesy, and rights least of all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. True ...

But it seems that this "thinking" is driving two of the three remaining campaigns.

[Turin_C3PO]

22. Only Trump's.

Regarding the Democratic campaigns, I don't think either group of supporters thinks civil rights is a zero sum campaign. There's always outliers of course.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. It's not just trump's campaign ...

The complete comment I responded to was:

Very few things in this world are zero sum. Money, courtesy, and rights least of all.

My observation stands.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. Esp if those that have less than them live in another country

[linuxman]

38. Out of sight, out of mind.

[brewens]

81. I'm one that will be quite happy if all goes well and I get to retire for some years,

fishing and drinking beer within 100 miles of where I grew up. Throw in a couple road trips to the Oregon coast every year for better fish and crab and I'll be good.

My problem is with people (1%ers) that would take that away from me for what would amount to one years of yacht gas for them.

[Egnever]

6. I have no issues with wanting to be rich

What i have issue with is most rich people do it on the backs of others.

[linuxman]

10. How do you mean?

Like, they have employees?

What's your definition of rich?

I'd personally put it pretty low. Say, 500 combined yearly income.

[Egnever]

12. Like they cheat their employees.

Like they think because they created the company they are entitled to all of its proceeds while paying thier employees as little as they can get away with. Like they search for tax loopholes and regulation loopholes to lower costs at the cost of the environment or contributing to the upkeep of the raods and infrastructure needed for their product to even exist.

The list of abuses is never ending.

What quickly comes to mind is the owner of the coal mines recently indicted who literally let people die rather than lose some profit to keep his employees safe.

Rich I have no problem with sadly many of the rich get there by exploiting others. I find nothing whatsoever admirable in that.

[linuxman]

17. Regarding the environment and lives aspect, you're right. Those places/people exist.

Regarding pay and taxes, I can't say I quite agree.

The vast majority of businesses are rationally self-interested. For them, that means paying the minumum they can to both the employees and the gov. Not saying it's right, but how many of us cut an extra check to the feds each April out of altruism? Until the tax code is fixed and minimum wage is raised, that's just simple economic reality. There's nothing sinister there, though there isn't anything noble either. As far as pay goes, everyone working outside of a slave arrangement is doing so for an agreed price. Unless the employee can convince the employer to pay more, very few are going to do it spontaneously, especially large companies where such decisions are never made on an individual level. That's just business, plain and simple. Some like Costco have a different aproach which works for them, and that's great. Not giving someone 20 dollars per hour when they agreed to do it for ten isn't exploring someone, though.

Now, that is not to say there aren't ways some companies screw their employees for financial gain, but following our fucked up, loophole filled tax code and paying people a federally mandated wage aren't really in that category, in my opinion.

[Egnever]

19. You are saying it's right

I am saying it is not.

It is certainly standard business practice but that does not come close to it being right.

And the thing is the people who do what isn't right best wind up richest....

You say wages are an agreement. That isn't really true though. If everyone had a job then it would be an agreement but mostly in the lower end jobs it is taking advantage of underemployment. That is why when unemployment is low wages tend to rise.

Which is why the minimum wage is so important. It sets a floor that business can not exploit

What companies like Costco show is that it is not necessary to mistreat your employees or the environment to do well.

It is when you are squeezing every opportunity to extract the wealth of the company for the enrichment of the few that you can excuse yourself with the good business practice line but really you are lying to yourself.

I also object to the excuse that it is not made on a personal level. That is exactly the thinking that I despise in rich people. It is easy to say but the results are much different to the people that are affected by them.

The worst part of all of it is many of the people that keep that thought process going, have more money than they could ever reasonably spend already but choose to continue to look for ever more creative ways to extract more. All under the guise that it isn't personal just good business..

Horseshit

Costco is good business your version is reprehensible.

[Turin_C3PO]

21. They can choose to pay living wages though

and most don't. To me, that's unethical.

[AgingAmerican]

43. Rational self interest was called "Rational egoism" by Ayn Rand

And is a central precept of Libertarianism.

[Egnever]

16. Costco rich I can respect Walmart rich I have nothing but contempt for.

Despite the sagging economy and challenges to the industry, Costco pays its hourly workers an average of $20.89 an hour, not including overtime (vs. the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour). By comparison, Walmart said its average wage for full-time employees in the U.S. is $12.67 an hour, according to a letter it sent in April to activist Ralph Nader. Eighty-eight percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance; Walmart says that “more than half” of its do. Costco workers with coverage pay premiums that amount to less than 10 percent of the overall cost of their plans. It treats its employees well in the belief that a happier work environment will result in a more profitable company. “I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” says Jelinek. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.”

[brewens]

83. I can tell you that I go to Costco ever two weeks and always see the same faces.

If you went with me, I know I could spot at least ten that have been there for ten years or more. Maybe even ten that I know have to have 20 years in there. I've floated Hell's Canyon with the meat department manager and a bunch of his crew. I'd spot three 20 year guys back there on a good Saturday.

I went to school with one of the Costco founders nephew's. Good guy and he got hired there right out of college. They never made him a prince though. But he's a manager of one of their stores so he's got it made in my book.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

7. Good for you

if that's what you want. Here is a concept though about money many don't realize; in order for someone to be rich, many people have to be poor. We can't all be rich, otherwise there'd be nothing to distinguish classes of people.......

[linuxman]

9. And?

It's all relative.

Of course there have to be both. If there weren't, everyone would be equally well/bad off, and there wouldn't be two different words for financial status. Ugly/pretty, tall/short, old/young. If therevwerent distinctions, there would be a need to describe those nonexistent differences.

If you mean that people with money have it because people are poor, well that's where I disagree.

[TDale313]

27. It's the level of income/wealth inequality that IMO is a major problem right now.

Of course there will be differences, and I have no problem with wealth. But the system for the last four decades has seen a huge redistribution of wealth upwards. This level of inequality has historically leads to major instability.

[linuxman]

28. What level of distribution do you think would be ideal, and why?

Serious question.

People have said the same thing for all time. There was never a period when everyone looked at the rich and thought "I'm okay with this!". That's why I'm saying it's all relative.

[TDale313]

29. Right now the disparity is incredibly high.

Many economists and even many in those top income brackets will tell you this is not sustainable.

[linuxman]

30. I think it's more sustainable than we realize

Not to say it's good or beneficial, but that there's no real reason it won't continue on. We are becoming more productive as a society. With that comes massively increasing profits. Those profits will raise the wealth of the .1 percent for sure, but there really isn't any reason for society to destabilize so long as workers can buy food and shelter. For now they can (barely). Those profits which benefit the .1% come from the masses buying goods and serbices. If they no longer can because they are focused on staying fed and housed, it all falls apart. The gov. And the .1% aren't stupid. Before things can get to the point of collapse, purchasing power and wages will be increased to keep the whole system going. It's in everyone's interest, not just theirs. They arent going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They are, however going to forestall doing anything about it until they absolutely have to. The .1% may be greedy, but they are rationally self-interested.

[TDale313]

41. You have arguably three generations now- staring with Gen X

Where most realize they will never have the quality of life their parents had and that their children and grandchildren will likely not have their quality of life unless stuff changes drastically. People are moving beyond the comfortably numb stage. Too many can't afford food, clothing, medicine, shelter without going massively in debt. Students are leaving college with the equivalent of a mortgage in loans. Retirement's a pipe dream.

Ya know why young people are flocking to Bernie? They know they're being screwed.

As for the self interest of these robber barons? Many have given up on Americans as their customer base.

There will be a revolution. What form it takes is the question. Cause those at the top aren't gonna stop stealing from us till we make 'em.

[linuxman]

47. What I'm saying is, those robber Barron's won't let it get to that point.

If they were crafty enough to get this far and do so well all the while, I struggle to believe they'd push it far enough for your last scenario to occur.

We'll be kept docile and compliant, yet uncomfortable. Here, have some more fried cheese and dancing with the stars. Rinse, repeat.

The revolution won't be televised, because the network is using that time slot for honey boo boo.

The powers that be will keep us all on the hook. Sometimes they'll feed us a little line, sometimes they'll reel us in, but they'll never fillet and fry us. They know the same would happen to them.

[AgingAmerican]

44. Bring back the 90% top marginal tax rate

Problem solved

[shrike]

31. I knew a guy who had all that. Hassle, hassle, hassle.

Even though he had people to take care of things for him it was still a hassle. He eventually downsized to a simpler lifestyle. It was once told to me, "You don't own possessions, they own you." Not true for everyone, but certainly true for him.

[linuxman]

35. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

You can't let your life run away from you. If it worked for him, great. Seems most people in similar positions haven't seen enough reason to downsize though, so there must be some appeal.

[shrike]

78. As long as you don't expect it to make you happy

I've known a lot of rich people. Seriously. And the happy ones spent time with their families, their spouses, their friends. They gave back to their communities. The problem with getting rich is that it tends to take up a lot of your time. (Unless you're lucky enough to inherit.) Don't let it take you away from what's really important. Giving your kids expensive stuff isn't going to make up for your time. Just find a balance. It can be done, if you're mindful of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Income innequality is something that should worry you

And it is related. By the by, it is starting to get connected with economic crisis.

Though in your dreams, and I am going to be dead serious, have plans for a fortress your kids will live a nightmare. Hell if you are young enough you will...and it will be the kind of nightmare that will change that idea of a big house, with a large kitchen, and a green yard. In fact, that world will not let you have that green lawn.

[linuxman]

34. I think I'll keep aiming for success anyway, thanks.

I'd rather not cut short my dreams based on online message board seering. My family and I will fare far better with land, a nice home, and an education than without. I don't see the end times coming around the corner, and if I did, well...it will be more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes than on a schwin, as the saying goes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Climate change cares little about your silly dreams

But you should plan for that fortress nevertheless.

[linuxman]

37. I don't see it confounding my dreams. Maybe altering slightly, but not enough to derail my plans.

Not sure why you think I'd need a fortress. Are the mongols invading?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You might want to avoid the IPPC reports then

And what 4 degrees centigrade mean for human civilization...don't get me started on 8

[linuxman]

42. If it actually happens, I'm not sure why I'd be better off poor.

That's like saying "you might get cancer, so why bother planting rose bushes". It's not like I'm going to be better off without doing anything to better my life. I mean, I'm going to die sometime in the next 70 years, more likely than not. I still hit the gym every day.

Still not sure why you think I should build a fortress. It's not going to keep out the heat.

[AgingAmerican]

45. Money will not insulate you from the fate of mankind

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Bingo

[linuxman]

49. Only if we're talking existential, world ending stuff.

Otherwise yes, it certainly will. History has shown that time and again. Exceptions? Sure, they abound, but I'll do better with than without. Besides, whats the harm in trying?

[AgingAmerican]

51. No, it won't

And your Libertarian beliefs won't either.

[linuxman]

54. Your reading comprehension is poor.

Still, i believe it will. That is, it will better than doing nothing.

You're welcome to your own plan.

[AgingAmerican]

55. When you pushed 'Rational self interest'

You gave yourself away

[linuxman]

68. You should read up on political realism theory. It's where I borrowed the idea from.

You're giving yourself away as a jump-to-conclusions Jerry.

I know you want to out me as a radian so, so bad, but it's not going to happen when you seize the first thing you perceive as evidence without having a clue as to what you're talking about.

The world's a big place with lots of ideas and information. You can find those in books. Check them out.

[AgingAmerican]

70. It is a central precept of Ayn Rands Libertarianism

As is pretty much everything you spout (codified selfishness). Just a coincidence?

[linuxman]

73. Ah nice.

Improving my life and those of my loved ones is selfish. Glad I'm not part of your family.

I already told you where I got the idea. If that's not good enough for you and you'd rather sit there and try to impress me with your well rounded knowledge of all things rand (which you have for some inexplicable, totaly not because you're a radian reason. Man accusations at strangers on the internet is fun!) You can pound sand, because your obviously more interested in arguing and flinging accusations than having a conversation (a libertarian trait).

We're done here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Try but yes

We are talking existential world ending species extinction. That crisis will force a change in what we value...if we are to survive. The age of oil will come to an end in your lifetime

[linuxman]

59. If. That's it, isn't it?

If we survive, I'll be sitting in a better place than had I done nothing. Personally, I don't think it will get to that point. I don't see how that would change the value we put on shelter, land, education, and liesure, but whatever. Maybe we'll all value check to check lifestyles and cracker box apartments. Maybe I'm betting on the wrong horse.

As far as oil goes, yeah, for sure. I don't plan on investing in it myself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. This will happen in that 70 year window

[linuxman]

53. Again, why give up now?

If we're doomed, I may as well go all out. If we're not, sweet! I bettered my life and those of my family.

Is it inevitable? Are we doomed no matter what? Why bother doing anything then? I don't believe we are fated to all die in some apocalyptic end here in the next 100 years myself, but there is always that possibility. We could be smashed to dust by and asteroid in a year or so, but I still wake up and brush my teeth every morning. I still plan on having kids. I'm not going to lay down and die over something that may never come to pass.

Now, about the fortress. I really am curious about that. Why would I need one?

[AgingAmerican]

56. Because selfishness in such a situation will only make things worse

Do you understand the concepts of selflessness and 'we are all in the same boat'?

I know these concepts make libertarians (Oligarchists) cringe, but it needs to be asked.

[linuxman]

62. Can't we have a conversation without your implied ad hominems? It's petty.

Desiring a nice home with some land along with free time and education for my family isn't selfish.

Of course we're all in the same boat. Why are you acting like I plan on getting rich by burning motor oil in the SeaWorld aquariums?

[AgingAmerican]

63. Nobody will be getting rich in a few years

What is your backup plan once that fails? Becoming part of the solution?

Implied ad Hominems? I can swear you were just touting 'rational self interest' which is a central precept of Ayn Rand think.

[linuxman]

66. Not with that attitude, for certain.

Rational self interest is a central component of political realism, which im borrowing the concept from. I can't speak to the rand bit, as I've never read her, nor any other libertarian authors. You seem to know more about it than me, interestingly enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. It is time to tell the truth

The loner we take as a species for real changes the likelier we are to be, as you put it, to be doomed.

The fire in Alberta is a perfect example of well rather irrational response. It is a perfect opportunity to speak of the changes we need to make instead we have irrational accusations of making this political when a pol speaks the truth

It is partly cultural. That is hardly the response in places where culturally it is about the we, as a social entity and not the I.

Try, I give two shits if you try to become the next Bill Gates. But climate change, chaos, weirding, whatever name is used, is already affecting your life...whether your political leaders have the gumption to tell you or not, and the worst changes you will experience in your lifetime. Ergo that fortress building.

[linuxman]

64. So do you mean a literal fortress, or a proverbial one?

My bottom line here is that my dreams for the future aren't at odds with climate change. Maybe the liesure car, but that's near the bottom of my list. Maybe I'll get a tesla. You seem to be implying that my plans are somehow either incompatible with or contributing to this dark future. That's the crux of our disagreement, I believe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The crucial that sooner or later

Humans will have to either change how energy is produced to allow for high level consumption, or we will not be able to engineer our way out and we will see dark times. We might see species extinction

We still have some time. But politicians as leaders have to tell the truth. Yes, the crisis is worst than they are willing to speak off due to politics

[linuxman]

69. We're making giant strides far quicker than most thought possible

That's why my concern is tempered.

Even the Saudis are realizing it. So are the Russians. The thing is, the faster others work towards alternate energy, the faster it becomes unprofitable for those who dont. That's the greatest motivation of all were not any more screwed now than we were in the 70s during the global starvation apocalypse we were all but assured of. They didn't even gave a solution staring them in the face like we do now. That's why I'm not sold on the all is lost outcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Well I foresee a change in the culture

Where stuff is going to be less valuable. As to the Saudis. It is not because they want to leave reserves in the ground. They see the end of the age of oil. In the meantime we are producing far more.

As to past crisis that were solved...this is what makes this one so tricky. It has no end. Really. It is also very complex and I know people are not bound to believe those who tell them it is worst than.

Alas, I really don't believe the US political class will be frank and honest until a major US city has sections under water.

[linuxman]

74. I can't see that.

I don't believe history has ever documented a time when everyone didn't value land, shelter, education, and a means to trade (money .

We are producing far more because it's now cheaper. When it's no longer cheaper than solar, nuclear, hydro, or wind, we wont. We're getting there.

The food/pop./starvation crisis of the past hasn't ended either. We simply fixed it for a time. These issues aren't a demon you kill and forget about. Very few things are. This current crisis really is no different in that regard.

Yeah, probably not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. This a truly like no other crisis

The psychology is actually more interesting to me at this point than anything else

[FLPanhandle]

14. Stop at #2.

The third in the trilogy is shit. Should never have been made.

I love the first two though. Tons of great lines.

[linuxman]

15. I honestly never cared for any.

I gave them all a shot, but they just weren't my cup of tea.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. The third is spotty, but should be watched, if for no other reason than to appreciate . . . .

. . . . the genius of one and atmospherics of two.

Andy Garcia did a credible job. Pacino was okay but kinda phoned it in. Talia Shire was credible. Diane Keaton . . . . well, I love Diane Keaton, so no comment.

Sofia Coppola was horrible. Indeed, her performance dragged down the entire movie.

[pressbox69]

76. Daddy's

girl.

[pressbox69]

75. Agreed

3 stinks.

[UTUSN]

18. The "Godfather/Mafia" thing - no different from the "Mexican cartels" today - but glamorized

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Of course Sonny's wealth is entirely sourced through violent crime and that line serves to

demonstrate the compartmental ethics and denial of action Sonny and his family indulge in to allow themselves to be predators while thinking of themselves as family people. Quite obviously, Sonny builds his own wealth by taking advantage of the poor in ways Vito would not, for example dealing in hard drugs. The contempt Sonny has for himself is not about having wealth but about the things he and his family have done to obtain it. 'They hate me for my wealth' says a murderous criminal who preys upon his own community and city. Do you think that's why he is hated, really? I don't.

[CTyankee]

25. The two Godfather movies are exceptional in the history of modern cinema.

When I went back to see them I was amazed that I didn't remember the violence, just some of the quotable lines and some of the mystique surrounding them. But surely they were the exploration of a crime family that also reveals basic corruption in our political system to accommodate such a crime family. It's just the other side of the coin, IMO.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Did you watch the movie?or,even, read the exchange I posted ...

apparently not. Your post, while true; but, completely out of context, has nothing to do with his comment.

[bigwillq]

39. Great movies (nt)

[lunatica]

50. The Mafia became totally glamorized by The Godfather book and movie

Mostly because the Corleone family is portrayed as the good guys fighting against the bad Mafia guys. It showed nothing about how they actually became a crime family or the real victims of the Mafia.

but I have to admit I loved the book and the movies. The movies are a work of art. They still hold up just as well, if not better than they did when they first came out. Except maybe now Francis Ford Coppola's visionary work stands out even more.

[Gomez163]

57. Obviously you meant Michael. Sonny is swiss cheese at this point.

[EllieBC]

60. Poor Sonny. That scene at the toll booth always made

me tear up. 😞

[Gomez163]

65. It was Carlo that set him up. He got his in the end.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Oops ... You are correct, it was Michael.

[brewens]

77. I have all those. I'd rate Godfather II as the best ever sequel. I don't know how you beat

that one. III was alright too.

[pressbox69]

80. It's a fun movie to watch but I never took it that seriously.

I'd rather hear Christ's views on rich men instead of Michael Corleone.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. I'd rather SEE the Christ's views PRACTICED by the rich and the poor.