this question says more about who is asking it than anything else. the person asking the question assumes the goal is self aggrandizement and money, and shows how simplistic they are.

The stereotypical statements.
"I'm superior because I don't desire money."
Translation "I need a transparent lie to fall back while I vote for people who will take money from people who worked hard enough to make and give it to me because I'm not willing to pay the price to provide for myself or live within my means."


"

"Only immoral people desire money."

These people that say that hollow bullshit really say "Now get the fuck out of my way so I get my grubby hands on some money, anybody's money, because I'm too lazy and stupid to know how to make money!!!!!!!

Money is all based on skill, smarts, or luck. You need two of the three to become rich. Many people are very smart but they don't have a particular skill and they don't get lucky. Then you look at millionaires like Eminem and you see that he is a high-school drop out, but he had skill (rapping) and he got lucky in the music industry. Skill, smarts, or luck... two of the three and you are set.

What Tettleton is saying id that nobody gets lucky or unlucky or screwed over, ever, in the history of mankind. Nope, no rich people have ever lucked into their money, and all poor people are dumb.
In other news, Tettleton's Chew is saying Obama, not himself, is trying to cause class warfare.

Many people think that millionaires lucked into their money when they are not looking past that. In their eyes lucking into money is basically becoming rich without an education. Well this is not true. All rich people without an education have gotten lucky somewhere but have a unique skill that sets them apart from all the rest. No one lucks out, but they do have unique skills and have experienced luck at some point in their lives.

"And if you are so rich, why you are so dumb?"

Can I just point out something that no one has mentioned.

Being an academic these days has ALOT of risk and ALOT of sacrifice.

The job market is thoroughly saturated, if you decide to take the path of an academic you do not do it for job security. Most Academics cannot find jobs, and those that do often cannot find the tenure track positions TC bases his argument around.

Deciding to be an academic has a risk as great as anything a business person does. You are deciding to risk not finding work and living on low pay to pursue the study and teaching of knowledge. I guarentee that the vast majority of people who go into academia do not do it while thinking "gee this is an incredibly stable career." Unless you tough it through half a decade of school, miraculously find a job, and manage to publish several works under your name while not pissing anyone off, the job is the antithesis of stability. The fact that TC can suggest that there is no risk in academia shows the bubble he is living it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TTPQCPA6I/AAAAAAAACwA/ZHZH-Bi8OmI/s400/ALOT2.png

"'If you're so smart why aren't you rich? Well????' This is a question I love to put to academics at cocktail parties. It puts an end to their ignorant bullshit before it even gets a chance to start." – Tettleton's Chew

You know, this is actually a pretty funny thing to picture. Imagine an extremely ugly, fat android of a man chewing chiclet in a cocktail party for Harvard professors. Let's give him a John Deere T-shirt. Now imagine him going up to a random professor and screaming that. I'm sure you'll be able to picture the dumbfounded look on everyone's faces, as they consider how to respond to this idiot. Now consider that many of the professors present are in fact rich.

This thread makes me want to poke my eyes out.

redhouse1938: It's existence makes me want to do the same, yes.