Speaking of the Rich, Do You Suppose........

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I don't know how many of you live near rich/well off DGI people, but who do you think will fair better, the well prepared, the rich or the poor? And, who would you be more inclined to help, the rich man that will offer you a gold coin for a bag of beans or the poor man who has nothing to offer. Would you rather have the rich man come into your abode and pay his way with coins, or the poor man who will work for food? This is an important question for me.

-- Rasty (Rasty@bulldoggg.xcom), October 18, 1999


Keep your gold. I'd rather have a friend.

The major problem with helping the rich man is that he has always been used to buying his way through anything. The problem with helping the poor man is that he may well resent what you have and think that you are not sharing ENOUGH. I would gladly help someone that is showing initiative but I adamantly refuse to give someone a handout when a hand up is more appropriate.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

If both (the rich and the poor) are DGI, how many of the 'rich' are going to have bags of gold ready to purchase anytbing with?

-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), October 18, 1999.

Dian, I knew a man who was an electrican, he never bought a house or a new car. His passion was coin collecting, and every month he saved enough to buy a gold coin. When he died (he was 80 years old), his heirs were sitting very pretty. To look at him, you would think he was a derelict, a rich one at that.

-- never under estimate (neverunderestimate@neverunderestimatee.xcom), October 18, 1999.

In a bad situation the well prepared is rich regardless of gold holdings. I would always help an honest goodhearted person no matter if he is rich or poor. Being poor does not make you "good" and being rich does not make you "bad".

-- Harvey Wilson (harv@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.


Very interesting question, and one my husband and I have pondered, too.

In one of the suburban newspapaers that caters to the ultra yuppie crowd living in homes where the low end is $300,000, and they go WAY up from there, there was an article discussing how the 'grapevine' in this particular area is extensive and strong, and how much influence this 'grapevine' has on whether new/old restaurants thrive, survive, or die a quick death. The article did a quick survey on eating out habits, with one of the questions being "How often do you eat out each week"? I don't recall the number of people polled, and I'm pretty certain this poll would not meet 'scientific standards' , but nonetheless, the resultant answer was staggering: Out of 7 days each week, an overwhelming majority ate dinner at a restaurant 4 or more times. 4 or more times!! The restaurants in this area are not cheap, nor are there many 'fast food' joints. I can only imagine what these people spend on eating out...

I can't imagine that many of these folks could/would manage very well if their daily 'conveniences' such as eating out the majority of the time are cut off, can you? I mean, can you see many of these people 'making do' with store bought canned stew (perish the thought someone might know how or be inclined to home can food themselves) for more than a week without having an extreme case of the 'whines' (or worse)? I think there is a potential for more disruptions in the upper middle class, 'nouveau riche' neighborhoods than there might be in middle or even lower middle class communities.

People who have had to 'make do' or do without at least sometime in their life have a better chance, in my opinion, than those who have lived their lives like Blanche DuBois.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

Practical skills will no doubt be in high demand.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 18, 1999.

actually, a guy who is willing to trade a gold coin for food can hardly be described as rich. But, I find that if I have something to gain from a transaction (a gold coin vs nothing but promises, or thanks) i'll take the coin. But then again.... if it's a gold coin for beans... what the hell will I need it for? So, on the limited information you've provided for me, (one is rich, one is poor, and both live near me) I vote to take in as many as I can resonable accomodate, and have them help me hang onto my stuff, by force if necessary.. But wait, what if one of these guys is a trojan horse? can i rsik my whole family? of course not. So, in that case, shoot em both and there's two less mouths to feed, a bag of gold coins for me and more fertilizer... But wait, what if they have friends? I mean if i just murder people won't the community come after me? Gee.. it seems that there isn't a really good answer tot he y2k dilemma is there... the collapse of a civilization kinda sucks doesn't it?

-- jeremiah (braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

I'd make the rich guy pay in gold, have the poor one pay with work around the house. When the rich guy becomes a poor guy, give him the same opportunity to do practical work at the house or neighborhood that is needed. That is, assuming that our rich people have any useful skill sets in a TEOTAWAKI situation.

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), October 19, 1999.

Kill the Rich...

...to feed the poor!

-- Jello (Biafra@Dead.Kennedys), October 19, 1999.


Ed yourdon is rich. Think he should be killed? This is a stupid thread.

-- ($$$@$$$.com), October 19, 1999.

Comedy is dead. Are you not familiar with the infamous Jello Biafra and the DK?

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ