Is making Art for the upper classes? How can proles make art without drowning in poverty?

It's actually not very hard to become financially free / wealthy.

If you took someone with the brain of Warren Buffet, relieved him of his wealth entirely and gave him a job greeting folks at walmart for 8.15/hr he would be a multi-millionaire again within a few years.

That is the real difference between rich and poor, the contents of their brains. The secret is quite simple and I could tell you in a single sentence, however it would do you no good, you need to train your brain to think differently, mostly by reading financial books.

You find a wealthy patron, or at least that's how it worked in the past

t. 19th century sociologist

t. has never read a single book on wealth that wasn't inane endless drivel of capitalism vs. communism

>this is what poorfags actually believe

Just dictate your art ideas to the future where they will use post-singularity AI to actually make it duh

You realize that Buffet himself has talked about this in several of his books and that he adamantly disagrees with you? Your hero worship is pathetic btw.

>Can't explain why rich fag art enthusiasts constantly dirty themselves with the commoners just for a taste of "the struggle"
Face it, luxury is comfy but boring.

Name a truly great work of art that wasn't created by someone in the working class.

Well buffett is a unique man, and I should have said "almost any millionair or billionaire"
Especially the ones who got there through investing.

If you don't worship heroes, what do you worship?

Well it's not a very fair competition since the "working class" is 99% of the population and a great work of art is a pretty rare thing.

How old are you, just curious

> I should have said "almost any millionair or billionaire"

This is just doubling down on your own stupidity.

>Can't explain why rich fag art enthusiasts constantly dirty themselves with the commoners just for a taste of "the struggle"
You never asked me to explain it. I can do so easily. They're a bunch of trendy fags (lower class trends are in), like a lot of rich brats are. Not all animals are cats but all cats are animals. Most rich people are useless cunts, but nevertheless privilege of blood and possessions are almost always necessary in the production of profound individuals.

all art

Diogenes lived in a barrel, Shakespeare was the son of a glove maker, Jack London spent time as a hobo, and loads of 20th-century writers lived off an army pension. This isn't even a good example of classism.

>Diogenes lived in a barrel

It was a very fancy barrel.

Great counter argument you have here really, instead of trying to disprove the Fact that I put forward (that the difference between poor and wealthy is only a specific intelligence or education) you insult me multiple times.

So when you are using terms like "stupid" or "pathetic" to label me, I have t conclude that it is projection on your part, since you have offered no shred of a counter-argument.

It's not a trend if rich fags have been patronizing poor artists since before the Medici banking clan. Do you have any knowledge of history?

God, you sound insufferable

>Man who I used as my example actually disagrees with my theory on why he's successful
>Maybe I'm wrong? No he's just a unique case for unexplained reasons

>instead of trying to disprove the Fact that I put forward

You didn't put forward any facts. You put forward some pathetically simplistic hero worship in a barely comprehensible manner. To make matters worse, the person you chose to idolize has repeatedly gone on record to disagree with you.

I admitted that Warren Buffet was a bad example, he spent his entire childhood reading financial papers and mastering investment, which led him to become one of the richest men in the world.

The Idea that I am talking about is much simpler, that poverty is completely avoidable and in fact almost everyone who chooses to could be part of the top 5-10% very easily - and that it is only a matter of education, and retraining your brain to make the right choices.

Are you a Libertarian?

>poverty is completely avoidable and in fact almost everyone who chooses to could be part of the top 5-10% very easily - and that it is only a matter of education, and retraining your brain to make the right choices.

True for most demographics

There isn't much point in being a libertarian, it is the atheism of politics. But yes I am

Imagine my shock.

You have to have at least a high enough IQ to do basic planning so yeah, there are plenty of people who are doomed financially from birth.

The barrel was actually his reward from the city, for being such a great philosopher. His nestegg

You still haven't argued against him though.

Watch,
You are stupid and smell bad.
Well, that's it. I guess I win this round. Better luck next time.

No, I mean there are demographics for whom education is literally entirely uncorrelated to success.

I'm not talking about regular education, I am talking specifically about the financial education the wealthy learn and teach their children.

The best poker player in the world couldn't be a winning player without a bankroll big enough to handle statistical swings. I'm sure similar logic applies to markets.

You can make a profitable investment with one dollar.

That's literally entirely unrelated to what I said.

I'm talking about wealth creation not gambling.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Poker is winnable with statistical variance. It's not "gambling". It's a zero-sum game, which is the only way in which it differs from markets. I still think the point about variance is true.

This is why the bourgies need to be shot. Anyone that supports capitalists or capitalism also needs to be shot. They are nothing but cucks for the capitalists.

Will you shoot them while wearing homemade clothes made from sheep you raised yourself, with a homemade gun from ore that you mined yourself, and a belly full of food that you travelled around the world to gather?

all the russians

...

Where commies and socialists go wrong is in blaming capitalism for all of their problems, instead of the kleptocratic state. In fact they do the opposite and demand MORE state tyranny and mob rule (aka "democracy")
What they need is MORE capital and capitalism, it's an incredibly obvious observation that even a woman who could barely write a single readable novel realized.

> upper class make art
They dont
Artists usually drown in poverty

Right, because there's nothing "kleptocratic" about top capitalists at all.

I'm embarrassed on your behalf to have to say this, but Ayn Rand was much, much smarter than you.

I understand you are trying to be sarcastic, but your statement is in fact true. People don't get to the top in capitalism by being unethical or criminal, unless they are using state power to get ahead they will have to offer real value.

It's really not very hard to argue against communism

Please stop posting

Stop reading my posts and go clean your room

I don't have a room, lol

>People don't get to the top in capitalism by being unethical or criminal
Google "Bernard Madoff", "Kenneth Lay", or "Sackler family"

no, look at rap music

Thank you for three examples that prove my point that being unethical ruins you in the end, and therefor is not the way that most capitalists conduct themselves and instead they follow paths of being extremely ethical.
I understand you have a hard time undoing the imaginary monster that the marxist has created for you, but try to have an open mind.
Jealousy of the success of others is a guarantee for your own personal failure.

>i could tell you in a single sentence but i won’t because im lying

Poor people create and purchase liabilities, while wealthy people create and purchase assets.

Poor people spend all their money on food, housing, and other necessities.

Every item you can imagine can either be an asset or a liability, even a shirt or food.

>my point that being unethical ruins you in the end
Not that user, but its difficult to say that when the only time we would know they are being unethical or criminal is when they are caught. How can you say with certainty that everyone that acts criminally is caught?

Information and art is hierarchial and capitalist in nature so I guess.

Correction: it is for the RICH and the NEETS

You might as well just say "wealthy people make money". You're approaching a tautology.

absolutely retarded what assets could a person with a 50k a year salary and kids purchase you retard?

Like I mentioned earlier even one dollar can afford a profitable investment.

Thank god I inherited two houses

Exactly "wealthy people make money" , "poor people burn it" , I like that.

The House of the Seven Gables no doubt, but at great cost!

Right, but unless you know -why- you still haven't done anything except describe what wealth and poverty look like.

unbelievably apathetic and uncaring

The why is that they have different knowledge and make different choices. You have to develop a sort of money-consciousness to really see it I think, that is why I knew it would be pointless to mention.

>all the russians
Tolstoy was an actual count.
Dostoyevski was born in a noble family.
Pushkin was from a noble family.
Lermontov was from a noble family.

Seems like it could easily be an illusion or ex-post facto rationalization. Also doesn't account for

How is wanting to teach someone like that how to properly think about what they do with their money uncaring?

That's what they said. You're agreeing with them.

Shakespeare did alright

>Why don't the poor just invest their money instead of eating?

I already stated specifically that food can be an asset.

Food is an asset for anyone who makes more money doing anything than they spend on food. That doesn't mean that a person's eating choices are liable to be the difference between wealth and poverty if they make less than $10k a year for example.

I don't know why any of you even bother talking to Libertarians.

holy shit what
food isn't a financial asset except in the abstract, as a security

I used to be a Libertarian. I am still sympathetic to many Libertarian arguments.

And the need to consume food is a liability literally everyone has

Of course food isn't the difference, it's probably about 1% of the overall. The state of mind that I am promoting looks at every single financial and time decision that one makes, and makes a judgement and choice based on the potential future.

A salad is an Asset.
A cheeseburger is a Liability.
They both cost 5$

Does this single decision make you wealthy? No, but this and 1000 others like it will.

bootstraps etc.

Artists have always been dreamers, romantics and bohemians who don't care about poverty as long as they do what they love. This is one of the reastons why artist lean to the left.

A lot more than 1000. Probably more like an entire lifetime. For some people, the prospect of having modest wealth just in time to die isn't terribly appealing.

>“Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.

I eat what they serve at the homeless shelter

.. it's a good thing we live in this age where we can start a business with almost no initial invest and become ridiculously rich very, very quickly then.

Alright, you win Veeky Forums

Most businesses, I think about 90%, fail within the first 5 years.