Some people simply have no concept of money

[Syberia]

Wife divorcing ex-CEO: $43 million not enough

Marie Douglas-David, a former investment banker, says she has no income and needs her 67-year-old husband, George David, to pay her more than $53,000 a week — more than most U.S. households make in a year — to cover her expenses.

She signed an agreement stating that she'd get $43 million if they divorced, now she wants it invalidated because that's "not enough money" to live on. Some of her expenses include a Park Avenue apartment, three homes in Sweden, $700/week limousine service, $4,500 a week in clothes, $1,000 a week for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 a week for travel.

She formerly held a job as an investment banker, so she clearly is not without education and skills. She is 36, he is 67. She immediately quit her job when she got married, and if that doesn't scream gold digger, I don't know what does. Now she's broken the deal off (before you guys say anything, marriages in the CEO world are really nothing but business deals trading sex for money, there's hardly ever any real love involved (for christ's sake, they both accuse eachother of cheating), though I'm sure she'll play the whole broken-hearted innocent young woman thing now that it's over) she still expects to be able to leech off the guy. Sounds to me like she decided to get out when he lost his job, before her easy money dried up. You'd think she could get a decent job and learn to shop at Wal-Mart until she finds another sucker to take advantage of.

 

[akuchi]

i like the way conservatives like you insist a woman's place is in the home then go mental when they actually do that :3

In all seriousness though, she gave up her job when she got married. That doesn't obviously scream 'gold digger', it can just as easily scream 'home-maker' or 'controlling husband'. She gave up her career for this guy regardless.
Not only this, 'gold-digging harpie' stories like this are sensationalistic and feed on harmful stereotypes - evidence has just been published to show women generally end up a lot worse off than men after a divorce.

 

[Glen]

i think the fact that anyone has this kind of money is really frightening and disturbing

 

[Syberia]

Akuchi, the solution is for the women to get an education and build up their own skills then, and get a job rather than simply sitting back back to reap the rewards for the rest of their lives. If she was the one with all the money and he left her, you can be damn sure he wouldn't see a cent. I guess that's gender equality for you. No one should rely on marriage as a source of income.

If you say men take advantage of women just for sex because they're attractive, then you cannot honestly believe women never take advantage of men because they're rich for their money.

For the record, I never said a woman's place is in the home. Between Lexite and myself, guess who makes the bigger amount of money? Here's a hint: not me.

 

[Deck Knight]

Boy I hope this guy has the money to avoid family court, also known as "evil, vile, abusive, rapist, patriarchy enabling man punished; hapless, defenseless, ignorant, battered, preyed upon woman saved" court.

As long as they don't have any kids he'll probably just get leeched for 60% alimony for his remaining 25 or so years. If they do have kids that guy is screwed. Fortunately at 67 he doesn't have that much life left to suffer.

Btw. Syberia, "countess" is like "U.S. Senator." The very fact you have the title is an indication you are a poor steward of money.

 

[akuchi]

Akuchi, the solution is for the women to get an education and build up their own skills then, and get a job rather than simply sitting back back to reap the rewards for the rest of their lives. If she was the one with all the money and he left her, you can be damn sure he wouldn't see a cent. I guess that's gender equality for you. No one should rely on marriage as a source of income.

If you say men take advantage of women just for sex because they're attractive, then you cannot honestly believe women never take advantage of men because they're rich for their money.

For the record, I never said a woman's place is in the home. Between Lexite and myself, guess who makes the bigger amount of money? Here's a hint: not me.

If he gave up his job for her - and I freely admit I've no fucking idea what the legal system does over there - here he would have as much claim as her to the income.
I don't say men take advantage because women are attractive; I think men 'take advantage' - by which I mean engage in various forms of sexual harassment and violence because of a cultural power dynamic. Of course women take advantage of men for their money; whilst it's not as common men certainly do the same to women (not quite an analogous example, but one of my best male friends leeches off me like nothing else).
I believe the article says she's a former investment banker? Sounds like she has an education and career to me.
And of course, I think the sums of money involved are completely insane and *noone* should have such ridiculous wealth. I completely agree with the subject - no concept of money on either side, I'd wager.

 

[Deschain]

those who are successful and acquire wealth are unquestionably doing so because they're breaking the rules along the way.

they should all be punished severely, and their posessions divided up amongst those of us who aren't willing to sell our souls, which is the obvious reason we haven't made as much money.


please tell me you disagree with this post, as it is complete bullshit drivel.

 

[Deck Knight]

I sincerely doubt anyone who rails at other people for having "too much money" would be singing the same tune if they came into possession of it. Say via government-sponsored coerced (but I repeat myself) redistribution schemes.

That CEO probably worked an insane schedule for the vast majority of his life (maybe even now, at 67) to earn that money, money somebody else was willing to pay him for his services to their company. He deserves every single dime of it, and anyone bitching that he has "too much money" has an even worse problem than his.

If he doesn't have a concept of money, they don't have a concept of keeping what you earn. People with no understanding of someone else's time or worth should be nowhere near the levers of power anywhere.

 

[Ancien Régime]

i think the fact that anyone has this kind of money is really frightening and disturbing

i think the fact that you think "the fact that anyone has this kind of money is frightening and disturbing"...frightening and disturbing.

with that said, this case is patently ridiculous, and this woman is stupid.

 

[akuchi]

I sincerely doubt anyone who rails at other people for having "too much money" would be singing the same tune if they came into possession of it. Say via government-sponsored coerced (but I repeat myself) redistribution schemes.

I have yet to come into a possession of a vast amount of money from a 'wealth distribution scheme', noting that my benefits are only 47.50 a week.

I have apparently a decent sum of money stashed away for me from my father - whether I'll take it and donate it to charities or just tell him to stick it up his ass I don't know. Some things are - shock horror - more important than money.

 

[Glen]

im not saying he doesn't deserve it. i'm just saying i think it's ridiculous that anyone has that kind of money.

but then again, a system wherein a hundred thousand children die daily of starvation is obviously flawless because IT'S BETTER THAN COMMUNISM!

 

[Glen]

i think the fact that you think "the fact that anyone has this kind of money is frightening and disturbing"...frightening and disturbing.

with that said, this case is patently ridiculous, and this woman is stupid.

you cannot possibly justify having that much money, lol

'i earned it' is not a justification. you have no need for it, and you can seriously live the most lavish lifestyle you want and STILL have an absurd sum of money left over, and that money is just going to sit there and go to your shitty children who you can't be bothered to raise properly because it's oh so stressful and you're used to throwing money at problems to solve them

then those shitty children will have an unjustifiable sum of money, but you know, being born into wealth is the same thing as deserving it, right?

be reasonable here. i'm not against capitalism. but there really is no justification for having that much money other than senseless greed. if i had that much money, i can't say whether or not i would keep all of it. but i can say that i sure as fuck would not be able to justify it.

 

[Deck Knight]

im not saying he doesn't deserve it. i'm just saying i think it's ridiculous that anyone has that kind of money.

but then again, a system wherein a hundred thousand children die daily of starvation is obviously flawless because IT'S BETTER THAN COMMUNISM!

Yeah, there 1,000,000 children die a day because their government allocated stipend mysteriously disappeared into the hands of a Party Chief. They went to the store that with no meat to find it had no bread anymore either. Forget the store with no milk, they haven't received a shipment in weeks, and Glorious Leader just redistributed the family allotted cow. Fortunately, dear old dads' bones made great fertilizer after they murdered him for dissent, so at least our tiny family farm can feed us for two months of the year.

Grandma used to have money, but she got sick and has been waiting for five years to get treatment from a government sponsored entity after they failed to diagnose at her last approved examination, and that was three years ago.

Equal spreading of death, poverty, and misery. Nothing could be better than that, I tells ya. As long as IT'S NOT CAPITALISM!

Btw. if 100,000 children died a day in the US of any cause, You would wipe out more than 10% of total US population in less than a year. Unless you're suggesting the combined "capitalist" world by including Australia, Ireland, and Israel, all with varying degrees of "capitalistic-ness," truth be told. Forget about the UK and Canada, they've been socialist for years.

 

[Ancien Régime]

you cannot possibly justify having that much money, lol

'i earned it' is not a justification. you have no need for it, and you can seriously live the most lavish lifestyle you want and STILL have an absurd sum of money left over, and that money is just going to sit there and go to your shitty children who you can't be bothered to raise properly because it's oh so stressful and you're used to throwing money at problems to solve them

If you understood how capitalism actually worked, you wouldn't make such patently ignorant statements. In general, large sums of money are actually invested back into society, through business investment (which creates jobs, facilitates technological development, and creates opportunities for others to acquire capital, who then proceed to invest it, and start the process all over again). Situations like this are comparatively rare, and people who are this stupid with money usually end up losing it within a generation.

And at the end of the day, it's not your business how much money other people have. Maybe they could do something more "useful" with the money, but it's theirs, so quit moralizing. There ARE reasons to have a lot of money other than "senseless greed" .

Nice try, but read some Mises/Rothbard/Hayek and get back to me.

 

[akuchi]

We are not socialist, for the love of shit. We've been nothing approaching socialist since Thatcher. Just because we're a little more left wing than you OH MY GOD FREE HEALTHCARE doesn't mean we're all raving Marxists.

 

[Syberia]

but there really is no justification for having that much money other than senseless greed.

I agree that it's nothing but senseless greed that CEOs get what they get, especially when they don't give two shits about the businesses they run and run them into the ground doing so. I really don't have any respect for these types of people (imo they are criminals), and it's my personal belief that they should be forced to give up their $500 billion severance packages to pay off the pensions and benefits of the employees they screwed over and left with nothing when their companies collapse.

That being said, the people I'm referring to "did something wrong" in my book. What I do have a problem with is the government telling us how much money we "need" and taking the rest. What gives them the right to make that decision? Giving tax breaks to people who donate the extra to charity is one thing, but taking it by legislative force is another issue entirely.

 

[Deck Knight]

We are not socialist, for the love of shit. We've been nothing approaching socialist since Thatcher. Just because we're a little more left wing than you OH MY GOD FREE HEALTHCARE doesn't mean we're all raving Marxists.

I'd say given the number of people who die waiting for it, your health care has a very steep cost indeed for those who actually need it.

Anyway, this guy doesn't need to "justify" his money to anyone. He earned it. Someone paid him for services rendered. End of story. Can you justify getting paid $20 an hour in construction? I, non-construction working ignoramus think that is too much! $15 an hour would be much more equitable in my estimation.

Also, I need a raise.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Just because we're a little more left wing than you OH MY GOD FREE HEALTHCARE doesn't mean we're all raving Marxists.

There is no such thing as free healthcare*, akuchi.

*anything

 

[akuchi]

And the NHS has saved my life on at least five occasions, not to mention provided me with enough free healthcare to become healthy again.
No, it's not perfect - in fact, it's been a hell of a lot worse since they started privatising bits of it and contracting out everything in sight. But it's a damn sight better than nothing.
You also managed to miss the point. The UK is not socialist.

No, it's not 'free'. I've paid my NI contributions as has everyone who is earning money. But when I need it, it's there, however much I need it, whatever for, however much I've paid in, whatever my financial situation.

 

[Syberia]

There is no such thing as free healthcare*, akuchi.

Yes there is. It's the kind you don't get.

I don't necessarily disagree with government-provided health care as long as it's run efficiently and you can opt out if you don't want it. What I don't want are my taxes going into a system that makes me wait until I'm nearly dead to get treatment, because I can't choose to pay to go see a private doctor instead. If government-run health care exists with the option to simply not take part in it, and pay into private insurance instead, then it's probably fine. If it's so beautifully and efficiently run as Akuchi says it is, it should out-compete the private options anyways on its own merit, and no one will want to use them so they will go away. Not likely to happen, but nice in theory.

 

[Glen]

i'm not supporting communism... the sarcasm was in the word flawless. whenever current capitalism gets criticized, people just go 'AT LEAST ITS NOT COMMUNISM YOU STUPID COMMIE, YOURE SUCH AN IGNORANT LEFTIST' when really, that doesn't do a very good job of defending capitalism.

i'm talking about the hundred thousand kids that die daily of starvation throughout the entire world that people like this don't do anything for because they would rather sit on money. not use money to enhance their lives; dont get me wrong, i dont think people who opt to improve their own life instead of donate to charity are bad people. but to just fucking sit on such an absurd sum of money instead of helping people, i really don't see how it's justifiable.

 

[Luduan]

I'd say given the number of people who die waiting for it, your health care has a very steep cost indeed for those who actually need it.

And how many people is that, exactly? I'd wager it is less than the number in the US who lack healthcare due to their inability to afford it.

 

[Ancien Régime]

And the NHS has saved my life on at least five occasions, not to mention provided me with enough free healthcare to become healthy again.
No, it's not perfect - in fact, it's been a hell of a lot worse since they started privatising bits of it and contracting out everything in sight. But it's a damn sight better than nothing.
You also managed to miss the point. The UK is not socialist.

lol "privatization"

Privatizing a government agency usually means leasing its operations to favored "private" operators, usually those who have invested in political campaigns. Certainly, they are not subject to market processes (which is the real reason one would privatize anything).

The fundamental problem with government run healthcare is that (unlike a system like Canada, which is somewhat better because some can opt out, but it still has the same problem) it creates a monopoly on the provision of health care (or in the case of Canada, the provision of health care to people unable to pay higher rates). Now, since the system is single-payer, the doctors, etc know their product will always get bought. Therefore, there is no incentive to lower costs, accept lower salaries, etc (though i guess this could be solved by just making health professionals employees of the system and then slashing their salaries, but that's messy). Since there is a limited amount of care, and an unlimited capacity to pay, and no alternative options, the only way to send a "price signal" to indicate scarcity is rationing of care.

America is even worse, because our system is essentially a government created and supported private monopoly (which is arguably the worst possible monopoly, because it's for profit, AND it effectively blocks out competition from fully private entities by them being subsidized), and therefore, you end up with the worst of both worlds - price inflation, lack of accountability (you can't exert much political control, because they're "private", and you can't exert economic control, because they're subsidized).

Also, most countries are socialist to a degree.

 

[Syberia]

i'm talking about the hundred thousand kids that die daily of starvation throughout the entire world that people like this don't do anything for because they would rather sit on money. not use money to enhance their lives; dont get me wrong, i dont think people who opt to improve their own life instead of donate to charity are bad people. but to just fucking sit on such an absurd sum of money instead of helping people, i really don't see how it's justifiable.

The majority of "kids that go starving," at least in Africa and South America, do so because of the corruption of their own governments. This hardly sounds like capitalism is to blame to me.

 

[Deck Knight]

i'm not supporting communism... the sarcasm was in the word flawless. whenever current capitalism gets criticized, people just go 'AT LEAST ITS NOT COMMUNISM YOU STUPID COMMIE, YOURE SUCH AN IGNORANT LEFTIST' when really, that doesn't do a very good job of defending capitalism.

i'm talking about the hundred thousand kids that die daily of starvation throughout the entire world that people like this don't do anything for because they would rather sit on money. not use money to enhance their lives; dont get me wrong, i dont think people who opt to improve their own life instead of donate to charity are bad people. but to just fucking sit on such an absurd sum of money instead of helping people, i really don't see how it's justifiable.

How do you know that they don't give to charity?

Are they to be suspected merely because they earn lots of money?

This is why most of these discussions siderail (I am of course, guilty). Generally speaking if you lean left you assume that Ebeneezer Scrooge is the model of every person who makes more than X dollars (X being whatever you define as excessively wealthy). If you lean right you assume that jealousy is the primary motivation for people who support "income equality." Why else would anyone feel that someone else (usu. a preconceived notion of a benevolent government) can spend any individual's earned money better than that individual can or does? Is it really that the person in question doesn't make "too much," or that the condemner wishes they had more pay?