PDA

View Full Version : "Money is overrated"-Coming to realize what really matters


Pages : [1] 2 3

Mansewerz
02-20-2011, 07:14 PM
I'm at a point in my life where it's a time of change, going to college next fall, deciding important life choices.

And, i'm starting to realize more and more that money isn't that important. When I look back at all I have, I wonder if I really need all of it. I have a ps3 that I hardly ever play, for example. Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.

I always wanted to be that famous guy who became richer and had it all. But, I'm realizing that as long as I have strong relationships and can help others and enjoy my life, money is not that important.

A great part of me now wants to go off to a country where I can live modestly, help people, and enjoy my life with family and tennis. The story below definitely opened my eyes:

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village. An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.

"Not very long," answered the Mexican.

"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.

The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."

The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

"And after that?" asked the Mexican.

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the Mexican.

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."

Sure, this is a simplistic look at it. But, does anyone else want to have a career that is fulfilling while living a modest life? Are material goods really that important?

norbac
02-20-2011, 07:20 PM
The only important things in life are Frank Lampard, beers and lamps.

jswinf
02-20-2011, 07:21 PM
I think you've got a good attitude. Money can come in handy, though, better to be "comfortable" than poor.

Mansewerz
02-20-2011, 07:23 PM
The only important things in life are Frank Lampard, beers and lamps.

Hahaha, loving it. Frank Lamppard?

And, I agree, better to be comfortable. I'm talking more along the lines of being a teacher with a modest salary vs being a company executive or stock broker who makes much more money, but has a less fulfilling job.

Cindysphinx
02-20-2011, 07:32 PM
I dunno.

I used to make a lot of money in my job. I quit when we had our third kid.

I think a lot about how life would be different if we hadn't had kids or so many kids. Or how much more money we would have if I had kept working.

Then again, I am happy with things as they are.

Maybe that means I have my answer?

SoBad
02-20-2011, 07:36 PM
I understand where you’re coming from and you have a healthy attitude, but I am not sure your view is realistic. Your story positions money as a means to unnecessary luxuries, but don’t forget that money can also be the difference between life and death (of a condition that is expensive to cure), between freedom and (possibly wrongful) imprisonment, and more generally speaking can often cure petty sources of great misery. Money is not overrated – do not underestimate the power of money.

Mick
02-20-2011, 07:42 PM
benjamin franklin said in hard times, you can only count on three things in life: an old wife, an old dog, and money.

and someone else said everyone is your brother until your rent is due.

ollinger
02-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Danes may claim not to care about money, but they can afford to -- the 2010 International Monetary Fund data lists Denmark as #16 out of 182 nations in per capita GDP. The study that declared Danes the happiest people in the world found Moldovans the least happy -- they were #132 in per capita GDP. Affluence predicts happiness better than any other single demographic variable.

salsainglesa
02-20-2011, 08:08 PM
I got hooked with your thread right away. I had the same thought some years ago. I have found the most important stuff is not what the "world" or the mercantillist society wants you to believe. Almost everything now is based on the economy. And even human relations are treated under such mercantillist values, where the idea is to win something in exchange of what you have to offer, turning yourself into a product. Sad pooh...
Human experience has a lot more texture and depth to it, no wonder why there are so many mental illnesses and physical too! mind and body affect each other.

Man, in order to make money looses his health, and to recover it looses his money. I don't remember where i heard that phrase, or read it, i'll check.

Even your thoughts affect the world for better or for worse at every instant. Not just your thoughts, your emotions aswell have a snowball effect that in the end reaches you. That is why empires fall...

What is important in life?

Well, I think one important thing is love, but not love as a feeling but as an action, not something you do because you have to, but something you do in a productive way. Because in this societies the productive people are the ones that produce money, and that is a value most persue. The truth is, it won't make you happy. Happy people are portrayed everywhere as succesfull people, people with lots of stuff, that do lot of fun activities, people that are amused and entertained with varied things and activities. But they are actually being pasive about their goals, dreams, life, desires. We are being told what to like, do, and want. That is a pasive way of living.

Another important thing can be satisfaction, but what produces satisfaction? That kind of feeling that won't go away when you achieve something and look for a new goal afterwards? A better car, a better house, a better job a fancy dinner, a gorgeous woman... everything will cause boredom in the end, at least once you get used to those things.
So what gives you satisfaction?
I believe a feeling of well being... but what is that?
It is not a circumstance, it is a state. A state of mind and body wich can not be achieved easily or by chance, it has to be looked for and achieved through hard work. Not the kind of work that you get paid for, but personal work, that will in the end be beneficial to every sensitive being.

I believe, meditation is a great way of influencing the circumstance, also become a loving person. One that loves, everything and everyone through the love to one self, love to life and love towards a couple. Hell, love towards your profession, love to tennis. Not a corny hollywood style kind of love, that is not love. I believe we live in a world where many things are disguised as love, as manipulation or guilt, posesiveness and a variety of other neurotic behaviors.

Said this, its not by choice that we are so loveless, it is by our circumstance we remain on ignorance of the choices we have and remain this way.

Same with compassion.

It is not a fight against those with power, its a search of everyone's humanity within your own humanity.

salsainglesa
02-20-2011, 08:09 PM
applying this to tennis, it would be like always training and always trying to get the gear right, and never ever learn to enjoy the game and just play.

Just live, without fear and without being reckless

Steady Eddy
02-20-2011, 08:32 PM
I think the decision to work in education might definitely be a good one for you. Also, the notion that teacher's live in poverty is not true. Their work hours, job security, and benefits make it one of the more preferable industries to work in, IMO.

I get the point of the story about the Mexican fisherman. But all sorts of people want more money, and it's not just because they're greedy. Just maintaining: your body, your car and your house is pretty expensive right there. We human beings are pretty high maintenance. Living in a good, safe neighborhood, seeing the doctor/dentist, and paying the insurance on, you, your car, your house, already you need all this money. The idea that people want a high income just to buy lots of "stuff" at stores isn't accurate. Past a certain point, sure, what do people want with more money? But as modern people there's lots of stuff we believe now to be a right. Things like cell phones, internet access, and health care. (In fact, some political groups maintain that health care is a right!) I'm just saying it's easy to ridicule "materialism" without realizing how many material things we ALL want and value.

salsainglesa
02-20-2011, 08:50 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-happiest-man-in-the-world-433063.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html


He is not Dane...

Kobble
02-20-2011, 10:04 PM
Money is overrated. The really bad part is working hard for it, and sacrificing fun and dreams for stability. Money isn't that hard to get. At least enough to buy cool cars and a good house isn't. Basically, it is a medical degree away. The problem comes in the reality that you will face sick people all day long, and many get burned out doing something boring for a big check. That is why things like being a tennis pro or golfer are so desired. You get to make 6 figures hitting balls and getting a tan around the world, sign autographs, and have girls at your disposal in your most green years. By the time this gets boring (27 years old plus), you will be doing your fairwell tour and preparing for retirement. The other way, you will be grinding all those joyful years away, and then when you are burned out you finally get a good job and hope you can have some fun before the gray hairs set in.

If you are asking me what is the most important, I will say adventure. Problem is, most people have another mouth to feed when they acquire the means to have some. Then, guilt holds you back because you worry about getting killed when people depend on you.

I think the original poster is smart for trying to find a good society to live in. U.S. is losing its allure.

JustBob
02-20-2011, 10:43 PM
"With the extra money, you can pay another Mexican to fish in your place and spend all your time with your family and friend's."

Take that Mr. MBA from Harvard! :)

Bud
02-20-2011, 10:47 PM
I'm at a point in my life where it's a time of change, going to college next fall, deciding important life choices.

And, i'm starting to realize more and more that money isn't that important. When I look back at all I have, I wonder if I really need all of it. I have a ps3 that I hardly ever play, for example. Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.

I always wanted to be that famous guy who became richer and had it all. But, I'm realizing that as long as I have strong relationships and can help others and enjoy my life, money is not that important.

A great part of me now wants to go off to a country where I can live modestly, help people, and enjoy my life with family and tennis. The story below definitely opened my eyes:

Sure, this is a simplistic look at it. But, does anyone else want to have a career that is fulfilling while living a modest life? Are material goods really that important?

When you make money, put most of it away in savings and don't blow it. Materialism seduces many people into a life of financial shackles and thus oppression. Hope you're strong enough to resist it.

Mick
02-20-2011, 10:53 PM
"With the extra money, you can pay another Mexican to fish in your place and spend all your time with your family and friend's."

Take that Mr. MBA from Harvard! :)

nice story but in the real world, some poor mexicans would risk their lives to cross the border and make money -- some don't make it.

ProgressoR
02-20-2011, 11:22 PM
Just be careful, I know plenty of teachers who went into it with great motivating reasons and ended up being completely demotivated by the part that is not teaching - planning, homework, meetings, management.

I agree there can come a part in life when you feel you might want to leave a certain job (well paying or not) and leave it all behind and lead a simple fulfilling life, but think about it. That is possibly due to YOU, just being unable to find your own happiness. Instead of blaming everything else and hiding, make the change, make your environment what you want it to be.

One thing you can be sure of, there are LOTS of people feeling like this. Use it. Bring them together, work together, for the change you feel is needed.

Dont mean to be judgmental on the OP or anyone, just me saying stuff.

GetBetterer
02-21-2011, 12:16 AM
salsainglesa:
I have found the most important stuff is not what the "world" or the mercantillist society wants you to believe.

You mean...capitalist?

Mercantilism is the belief that a country will be self-reliant, not trade with any other countries and only export goods rather than import them so the people don't have to have their economy affected by other countries.

The flaw with this was that although it is possible, as population grows it becomes more difficult to fend for everybody. Also, economically look at it this way:

I work 8 hours a day to produce food that I eat. It's split between farming bushels of wheat, or bushels of corn. Each hour that I spend farming bushels of wheat, is an hour I lose for farming bushels of corn.

If I use all 8 hours for bushels of wheat, I can get 24 of them. If I spend all of that time on bushels of corn, I get 8 bushels (negative slope of 3 on a graph because for each bushel of corn I grow, I lose 3 bushels of wheat).

Now, my good friend Manny farms the same things. He eight hours, Manny gets 36 bushels of wheat in 8 hours and he can get 36 bushels of corn in the same amount of time if he gives up farming the wheat (and this slope is -1).

Manny makes more than me clearly, but he should trade. Why? Because when they both produce a total of 33 bushels of wheat (My 15 and Manny's 18 ) and 21 bushels of corn (My 3, Manny's 18 ).

If I give my whole 8 hours to farming bushels of wheat, then I make 24 (as previously stated above) and if Manny were to spend 2 more hours farming corn, Manny gets 12 bushels of wheat and 24 bushels of corn.

Adding all that together, we get a total of 36 bushels of wheat (3 more than before) and 24 fish (3 more than before). With this, both I and Manny increase consumption by 1.5 bushels of wheat, and 1.5 bushels of corn (because for 3 more productions of each, Manny gave up 2 hours).

Hence, Capitalism is greater in the fact that all countries that trade with each other will reap the many benefits. If there's a disaster of some tragic sort (earthquake, flood, tsunami, etc.), then we're encouraged to help each other through alliances to bring back the benefits.

Too Long;Didn't Read - Salsainglesa, your belief of mercantilism is incorrect.

We are being told what to like, do, and want. That is a pasive way of living.

Where? God or my country of residence never told me what to like, do, and want. China does, but here I chose to play Tennis because I like it, because I wanted to. Wha - what is this? I don't even. ._.
=================================================
Also, a problem I see here is the word 'work.'

I'm doing what I want (small internship at a medical facility for my Biochemistry degree) and so I don't really "work" but more or less have fun. I have fun 3 hours a day Mon - Thu (sometimes Tuesdays off) and get 4k in USD. This is why I have so much time for Tennis, recently broke it off with my girlfriend, but there are many fish in the sea -- as long as the Mexican fisherman don't get them all...

See what I did there? Anyways...
=================================================
The real question is -- let's say I want that fish from the fisherman because the fish I catch taste like $%!&, so what would I trade? Maybe he'll give it to me for free because he's a nice guy and spend like 10 more minutes getting a fish for me.

But then, everybody wants that fish (which is food, and therefore a necessity by the way) because he catches the best, tastiest fish. He's going to run out of time and what does he get out of it other than fatigue?

Mike Bulgakov
02-21-2011, 12:55 AM
Danes may claim not to care about money, but they can afford to -- the 2010 International Monetary Fund data lists Denmark as #16 out of 182 nations in per capita GDP. The study that declared Danes the happiest people in the world found Moldovans the least happy -- they were #132 in per capita GDP. Affluence predicts happiness better than any other single demographic variable.

My view is that you are taking a myopic view on the subject. Yes, people in wealthier countries will generally rate themselves as being happier in polls, but the reasons are more nuanced than you explain.

1) The first issue is self-perception, and Danes generally perceive themselves as happy. When answering poll questions, it is likely that people will answer according to their conditioned responses.

2) Among affluent countries, studies show Danes to be happier than most countries with equally high per capita GDP and a greater inequality in distribution.

3) The culture in Denmark encourages a comfortable work environment and supports the raising of children in a positive way to a much greater degree than the U.S. allows. By this, I mean that a greater percentage of the budget is allocated to schools, health care, and programs that improve the quality of life.

4) I have spent much time in the U.S., Russia, Denmark, and Sweden. I have also travelled to many other countries. My girlfriend is Danish. My take is that the easy going, friendly, progressive (regarding things like women's rights and environmental issues), and rational approach to building a society is a part of why Danes say they are happy.

That being said, Danes would probably rate themselves quite a bit lower on the happiness scale right now than the would during late spring or summer. The long winter can take its toll on moods.

Janne
02-21-2011, 01:06 AM
Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.
Actually, a recent study made by OECD ("Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers") reports that Denmark has the highest amount of people who cite psychological problems as reasons for why they can't work. They're simply burned out. These statistics deal with people from the ages of 20 to 64. Here's the list:

1. Danmark - 48 %.
2. Schweiz - 42 %.
3. Sverige - 39 %.
4. Nederländerna - 38 %.
5. Tyskland - 36 %.
6. Storbritannien - 34 %.
7. Finland - 32 %.
8. Belgien - 31 %.
9. USA - 30 %.
10. Österrike - 28 %.
11. Nya Zeeland - 27 %.
12. Norge - 26 %.
13. Australien - 25 %.
14. Kanada - 22 %.
15. Polen - 18 %.
16. Tjeckien - 11 %.

I think it's normal for people of our age to go through this phase where we come to realise that money isn't everything. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it overrated. A life where you don't have to be afraid that any unexpected expense may put you homeless is never overrated. I'm definitely not arguing that money is everything, because it's not: a happy, secure and comfortable life is much more important. But money really has this magical power of making that life come true.

PCXL-Fan
02-21-2011, 01:16 AM
You can't be happy about having to struggle with finding good food and unavoidably faced with worry constantly day in and out about the future for yourself and your children. Gdp is an indicator of national wealth. Rampant national poverty generally lead not only to social discord and crime but also to impoverished governments, which leads to corrupt leaders and underpayed police which leads to corrupt police.

Whether you can afford the latest non-essentials (i don't consider good quality food and relative future security a non-essential btw) affording large amounts of nonessentials is probably not a great indicator of happiness. A recent captain obvious study was done showing no long term benefit of non-essential material items towards happiness.
Maybe Timmy's parents purchased him a ps3 and a big screen tv for christmas, but those goods benefit on happiness are only short term.

JoelDali
02-21-2011, 04:37 AM
Boobies > Money

Health < Boobies

Good serve > Boobies

Loyal Wife < Boobies

Hot wife ± Boobies

Psych degree < Boobies

Friends < Boobies

Loyal dog > Boobies

Boobies > Cheeseburgers

Stay in college. Stay away from da booby.

stanton warrior
02-21-2011, 04:46 AM
Boobies > Money

Health < Boobies

Good serve > Boobies

Loyal Wife < Boobies

Hot wife ± Boobies

Psych degree < Boobies

Friends < Boobies

Loyal dog > Boobies

Boobies > Cheeseburgers

Stay in college. Stay away from da booby.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the bold part!
Then again I play on clay... :)

dominikk1985
02-21-2011, 04:53 AM
I'm at a point in my life where it's a time of change, going to college next fall, deciding important life choices.

And, i'm starting to realize more and more that money isn't that important. When I look back at all I have, I wonder if I really need all of it. I have a ps3 that I hardly ever play, for example. Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.

I always wanted to be that famous guy who became richer and had it all. But, I'm realizing that as long as I have strong relationships and can help others and enjoy my life, money is not that important.

A great part of me now wants to go off to a country where I can live modestly, help people, and enjoy my life with family and tennis. The story below definitely opened my eyes:



Sure, this is a simplistic look at it. But, does anyone else want to have a career that is fulfilling while living a modest life? Are material goods really that important?

Denmark is also one of the richest countries in the world. maybe they don't care about money because they have enough.

People that have enough money don't need to worry about it. whether you make 70K or 80K a year is no big difference in life quality.

If you have a high life standard it's easy to say "I don't care about money-I just want health and friends).

However if you are poor and at the end of the money there is still some month left:D it will be a big worry. this is already true in the rich countries (a single mom that doesn't make much money for example) and even moreso in third world countries.

the richer you get the less money is important for happyness. I would say wealthy people that don't care about money ar happier than wealthy people that chase for more money, have an extremely luxory life and define themselves through their wealth.

However for poor people the life standard is very important because it can make the difference between having food on the table and not having it in extreme cases.

KenC
02-21-2011, 06:00 AM
What you are beginning to understand is called the Happiness Curve, AKA the Fulfillment Curve. It measures fulfillment on the Y axis and consumption on the X axis. See here for more info (http://newroadmap.pbworks.com/w/page/10458661/The-Fulfillment-Curve).

Just be careful not to let too many people realize that what we really seek as humans is not more stuff, but better relationships. Those can't be bought. However, the moment we start cherishing relationships instaed of stuff and stop our feverish, selfish overconsumption the entire world economic system will crash and plunge us into a life much like that of your mexican protagonist. And, we'll probably have to live in a world with a clean environment, too. Who wants that crap?

chrischris
02-21-2011, 06:37 AM
'The great source of both the misery and the disorders of human life, seems to arisen from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another.. Some of those situations , no doubt ,deserved to be prefered than others, BUT NONE of them deserved to be persued with that passionate ardour that which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our mind, either by shame from the rememberance of our own folly or by remorse of the horror of our own injustice'


Why are we happy?Check this Talk at ted.com:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

chrischris
02-21-2011, 06:41 AM
Denmark is also one of the richest countries in the world. maybe they don't care about money because they have enough.

People that have enough money don't need to worry about it. whether you make 70K or 80K a year is no big difference in life quality.

If you have a high life standard it's easy to say "I don't care about money-I just want health and friends).

However if you are poor and at the end of the money there is still some month left:D it will be a big worry. this is already true in the rich countries (a single mom that doesn't make much money for example) and even moreso in third world countries.

the richer you get the less money is important for happyness. I would say wealthy people that don't care about money ar happier than wealthy people that chase for more money, have an extremely luxory life and define themselves through their wealth.

However for poor people the life standard is very important because it can make the difference between having food on the table and not having it in extreme cases.

My 5 cents:I have been to Denmark many times and the people there are nice but quite
wellinformed so they are a bit cynical.
We in the US are in general comparatively mis and disinformed which leads us to think things are jolly and therefore we are more silly perhaps. Or manipulative.

Just my nickel 4 ya.

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 06:54 AM
getbettererI was refering to mercantilism as trade or comerce only in a mostly primitive way. But sure capitalism is more accurate, thank you for the correction. The idea being that treating human relations as investments and that you earn something out of other people is basically a fallacy.

In theory capitalism works, the problem is that there has been abusive practices all over, and the developed contries take advantage of their underdeveloped counterparts. The abuses go beyond that, since the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even within this societies.
Also food is not the only things produced, if it were, it could work better.

Regarding what people are told to like is a management of their aspirations and expectations, since we grow in a society wich molds our desires since we are very little, its quite evident in the growing numbers of people with eating dissorders and addictions and mental diseases. Its more subtle (but not by much) in the material things people wish for. And also about the ideas we build in our minds about what life should be. We are fed the illusion of freedom, but we are actually part of a well ingrained machine of production.

The thing is dehumanization is all over, abuse and exploitation perpetuated actively and with a great degree of unconsciosness by the one's with power, and pasively by the rest.

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 07:11 AM
Why are we happy?Check this Talk at ted.com:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

did you watched the mathieu riccard video? you might like it... i liked this one

dak95_00
02-21-2011, 07:15 AM
I think the decision to work in education might definitely be a good one for you. Also, the notion that teacher's live in poverty is not true. Their work hours, job security, and benefits make it one of the more preferable industries to work in, IMO.


Steady,

I know you are a retired teacher but you and Mansewerz should be informed. This is about to change as school teachers are under attack in both Ohio and Wisconsin, and soon to be in other states too. They are looking to strip teachers of their benefits, job security, etc.

If I had known 20 years ago that teachers would be the enemy of my state, I would've chosen a different field. I might still choose a different field and make a career change.

Mansewerz,
I like they way you think and do not disagree. I'd just go into whatever field you choose with an exit plan if it doesn't workout. Don't place all of your eggs in one basket!

Manus Domini
02-21-2011, 07:20 AM
OP, money is definately overrated. But it is necessary, unfortunately. :(

Boobies > Money

Health < Boobies

Good serve > Boobies

Loyal Wife < Boobies

Hot wife ± Boobies

Psych degree < Boobies

Friends < Boobies

Loyal dog > Boobies

Boobies > Cheeseburgers

Stay in college. Stay away from da booby.

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/graphics/bluefootedbooby4sm.jpg

chrischris
02-21-2011, 07:21 AM
did you watched the mathieu riccard video? you might like it... i liked this one

oK, good. i cant see which one you mean .. 'mathieu riccard´doesnt show result on that site, explain thanks.

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 07:25 AM
oK, good. i cant see which one you mean .. 'mathieu riccard´doesnt show result on that site, explain thanks.

http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html

this one

ollinger
02-21-2011, 07:56 AM
Bulgakov
We've been to Denmark, found that people live quite comfortably with little in the way of material wants. Of course there are people in the world with the same income who may be less happy -- neither I nor anyone else is suggesting it's the ONLY factor. But it may be the most predictive factor.

Manus Domini
02-21-2011, 08:33 AM
Bulgakov
We've been to Denmark, found that people live quite comfortably with little in the way of material wants. Of course there are people in the world with the same income who may be less happy -- neither I nor anyone else is suggesting it's the ONLY factor. But it may be the most predictive factor.

isn't Denmark all like similar socioeconomic class too? So both the rich and the poor are far closer to middle class than in America?

VaththalKuzhambu
02-21-2011, 08:37 AM
Denmark, happiness, alcohol, sex and drugs. Which is the dependent variable and which are the predictors?

PCXL-Fan
02-21-2011, 08:47 AM
Bulgakov
We've been to Denmark, found that people live quite comfortably with little in the way of material wants. Of course there are people in the world with the same income who may be less happy -- neither I nor anyone else is suggesting it's the ONLY factor. But it may be the most predictive factor.

Your wording of "predictive factors" speaks to using studies and data analysis to base findings. You don't need to stick to the limited confines of a study to understand the world and how things work, and see why where when and how income plays a role and to what extent they do. Common sense.

Manus Domini
02-21-2011, 08:58 AM
Denmark, happiness, alcohol, sex and drugs. Which is the dependent variable and which are the predictors?

I thought that was Holland?

chrischris
02-21-2011, 09:18 AM
They have some similarities but are 2 different nations nevertheless.

stanton warrior
02-21-2011, 09:20 AM
What you are beginning to understand is called the Happiness Curve, AKA the Fulfillment Curve. It measures fulfillment on the Y axis and consumption on the X axis. See here for more info (http://newroadmap.pbworks.com/w/page/10458661/The-Fulfillment-Curve).

Just be careful not to let too many people realize that what we really seek as humans is not more stuff, but better relationships. Those can't be bought. However, the moment we start cherishing relationships instaed of stuff and stop our feverish, selfish overconsumption the entire world economic system will crash and plunge us into a life much like that of your mexican protagonist. And, we'll probably have to live in a world with a clean environment, too. Who wants that crap?

So true...!

theyhatethecans
02-21-2011, 09:53 AM
Money isn't overrated but living above your means certainly is. I hope to teach my kids that they can lead whatever lives they would like as long as they spend less than they pull in. If that means kayak instructor or tennis bum, you can live a fun satisfying life doing these things on very little money (while saving). Now, when you make certain choices, such as getting a spouse or having kids, that's when the money thing becomes necessary, so if you see that in your future, try to build a career (and you can really enjoy your life while having a career by playing tennis 3 times a week or basically by finding fun things to do away from work - seems obvious but so many people don't do it).

VaththalKuzhambu
02-21-2011, 10:01 AM
Bob Dylan: A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do.

jmverdugo
02-21-2011, 10:03 AM
In my opinion is all about Quality of Life and what you consider your basic needs, the less you need the less money is going to be a factor, but it is always a factor.

Steady Eddy
02-21-2011, 10:03 AM
In theory capitalism works, the problem is that there has been abusive practices all over, and the developed contries take advantage of their underdeveloped counterparts. The abuses go beyond that, since the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even within this societies.

If the rich get richer, does it necessarily follow that the poor get poorer? It sounds like it should follow, but that's only if we assume that the economy is a zero-sum game. Another view is, that a rising tide, raises all boats.

Empirically, we know that two of the poorest nations, with some of the largest populations, China and India, have grown their economies enormously over the last 30 years. Many people there are still very poor, but in a relative way, they have improved economically. How did this happen if the poor only get more poor?

Domestically, things have changed alot in the U.S. As of 1970, only 10% of Americans had ever been on a plane. In the 60's, one car families thought they were affluent and central air conditioning was very rare. Now, even poor families spend $150 a month on media: cell phones, cable TV, etc. Those are services that didn't even exist 40 years ago. Nowadays, a family considered poor might have two cars, cable TV, air-conditioning and cell phones. Maybe you're right to feel that they should have more, but it's wrong to say that they have less than they did earlier.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well. I think much of the world still lives in abject poverty because of corrupt dictators who keep their economy in ruins.

GetBetterer
02-21-2011, 10:55 AM
Salsainglesa:
In theory capitalism works, the problem is that there has been abusive practices all over, and the developed contries take advantage of their underdeveloped counterparts. The abuses go beyond that, since the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even within this societies.
Also food is not the only things produced, if it were, it could work better.

*facepalm*

Did you read through my entire post? ._.

KenC
02-21-2011, 11:36 AM
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well.

It seems to me that capitalism, although far from perfect, was the best system to solve the world's production problems. But today we don't have a problem of producing enough goods, we have the problem of too many goods and not enough consumption. This is where I think capitalism doesn't work that well, when there is abundance. We need a "next generation" economic system that goes beyond delivering abundance and starts to deliver quality of life.

So, socialism and capitalism both can't deliver abundance and quality of life together, therefore, we need to stop looking left or right and start looking ahead.

GetBetterer
02-21-2011, 11:50 AM
KenC:
This is where I think capitalism doesn't work that well, when there is abundance. We need a "next generation" economic system that goes beyond delivering abundance and starts to deliver quality of life.

What is this? I don't even...

There's a reason why we have TARIFFS which are still used today worldwide.

r2473
02-21-2011, 12:47 PM
There's a reason why we have TARIFFS which are still used today worldwide.

Why do *we* have tariffs?

Anyway, to contribute to the OP, the correct answer is:

"Moderation in all things"

Manus Domini
02-21-2011, 12:54 PM
"Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness". The Founding Fathers didn't think so either :)

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 01:22 PM
What you are beginning to understand is called the Happiness Curve, AKA the Fulfillment Curve. It measures fulfillment on the Y axis and consumption on the X axis. See here for more info (http://newroadmap.pbworks.com/w/page/10458661/The-Fulfillment-Curve).

Just be careful not to let too many people realize that what we really seek as humans is not more stuff, but better relationships. Those can't be bought. However, the moment we start cherishing relationships instaed of stuff and stop our feverish, selfish overconsumption the entire world economic system will crash and plunge us into a life much like that of your mexican protagonist. And, we'll probably have to live in a world with a clean environment, too. Who wants that crap?

Feeling part of a whole certainly changes how the worls is percieved. I liked the graph and the approach aswell.

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 01:24 PM
Salsainglesa:


*facepalm*

Did you read through my entire post? ._.

Sure i did, unlike you.
By the way, it would be nice to point out what you are disagreeing with.

Mick
02-21-2011, 01:47 PM
Whoever said money can't buy happiness simply didn't know where to go shopping.”

Bo Derek (American Actress, b.1956) :)

FlamEnemY
02-21-2011, 02:38 PM
I'm at a point in my life where it's a time of change, going to college next fall, deciding important life choices.

And, i'm starting to realize more and more that money isn't that important.

A great part of me now wants to go off to a country where I can live modestly, help people, and enjoy my life with family and tennis. The story below definitely opened my eyes:



There's a thing one of my teachers said a while ago. He's a man I greatly respect so I listened carefully.

What he said was basically "Money should serve you, and you shouldn't serve money". Or, money is for living, but living isn't for money.

Personally, I'll be the happiest chap if I could get a job for around $20k a year as an IT specialist. I'm not living in the USA, so that should cover all my needs and I'll have enough free time for my friends and family and hobbies, mostly music.
In theory.

FlamEnemY
02-21-2011, 02:40 PM
There's a thing one of my teachers said a while ago. He's a man I greatly respect so I listened carefully.

What he said was basically "Money should serve you, and you shouldn't serve money". Or, money is for living, but living isn't for money.

Personally, I'll be the happiest chap if I could get a job for around $20k a year as an IT specialist. I'm not living in the USA, so that should cover all my needs and I'll have enough free time for my friends and family and hobbies, mostly music.
In theory.

What I think is most fulfilling though is teaching. Even though the yearly income in my country is, to put it simply, cr@p, I think I'll be happy doing that.

I'm getting carried away, whatever.

sureshs
02-21-2011, 02:44 PM
Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.


I think it is Bhutan. But even they are getting into capitalism as the younger people are jobless.

Regarding Denmark, it is a small country, which is protected by military agreements, and will never be on the wrong side of the US, and shares cultural heritage with the US making it a "friendly" country, does not have to deal with a lot of racial/religious diversity - too many things working in its favor. I wouldn't be surprised if people are happy, because it is kind of a manufactured paradise.

GetBetterer
02-21-2011, 03:10 PM
Manus_Domini:
"Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness". The Founding Fathers didn't think so either

It's actually Life, Liberty, and Property but Property became controversial with slave and all.

Salsainglesa:
Sure i did, unlike you.
By the way, it would be nice to point out what you are disagreeing with.

I quoted what I was disagreeing with, and just because I quote only a part of your post does not mean I did not read through your entire post.

I was wondering if you read through my entire post because of that key point right there, but I'll break it down for you.

The idea being that treating human relations as investments and that you earn something out of other people is basically a fallacy.

Then what was my example? Both people earned something out of the others. I even had math to back it up.

In theory capitalism works, the problem is that there has been abusive practices all over, and the developed contries take advantage of their underdeveloped counterparts. The abuses go beyond that, since the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even within this societies.
Also food is not the only things produced, if it were, it could work better.

Capitalism is working right now -- in actuality.

Now, if you don't like it we can always revert to socialism. Where everybody gets a fair share for their labor, controlled by and distributed evenly by the government based on use-value. Of course, we can have abusive practices in that as well. The government can start becoming a dictatorship, and dictatorship + socialism = communism. It's not like socialism is going to work either.

I'm not understanding two things:
Regarding what people are told to like is a management of their aspirations and expectations, since we grow in a society wich molds our desires since we are very little, its quite evident in the growing numbers of people with eating dissorders and addictions and mental diseases. Its more subtle (but not by much) in the material things people wish for. And also about the ideas we build in our minds about what life should be. We are fed the illusion of freedom, but we are actually part of a well ingrained machine of production.

If we're machines of production, then what's the other way to go to help others.

Like I said, mercantilism struggles indefinitely and the last time it was used was with Louis XIV of France, and even he didn't do anything, his Cardinal did who was keeping it alive by a thread, and when he died the entire system collapsed.

In theory capitalism works, the problem is that there has been abusive practices all over, and the developed contries take advantage of their underdeveloped counterparts. The abuses go beyond that, since the rich get richer and the poor get poorer even within this societies.
Also food is not the only things produced, if it were, it could work better.

I don't understand how the developed places/countries take advantage of the underdeveloped places/countries in the modern world. The United Nations has funds, donations, and even what's known as a Millenium Development Goal by 2015 (for most of it) to store money from all the supporting member states for various projects. The countries that are developing right now are attempting to support some of the more underdeveloped countries.

The only example of anything we're using underdeveloped countries for is U.S. and China fighting to gain African land with permission from the African government for farming purposes since the population is increasing rapidly as of now.

Oh and speaking of China, know how they're pretty much Communist? Remember when Britain took over Hong Kong for 99 years? Do you know why Communist China left Hong Kong alone? Because the British introduced Capitalism to Hong Kong and China went "oh hey, Hong Kong is flourishing since the British introduced a new economic system. We'll leave it alone."

Also, Jonathan Swift is probably laughing at you.

eliza
02-21-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm at a point in my life where it's a time of change, going to college next fall, deciding important life choices.

And, i'm starting to realize more and more that money isn't that important. When I look back at all I have, I wonder if I really need all of it. I have a ps3 that I hardly ever play, for example. Plus, in psychology, I learned that Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and part of it is that they don't care as much for money. They work 37 hour work weeks, get more time with family, and are generally happier people.

I always wanted to be that famous guy who became richer and had it all. But, I'm realizing that as long as I have strong relationships and can help others and enjoy my life, money is not that important.

A great part of me now wants to go off to a country where I can live modestly, help people, and enjoy my life with family and tennis. The story below definitely opened my eyes:



Sure, this is a simplistic look at it. But, does anyone else want to have a career that is fulfilling while living a modest life? Are material goods really that important?

You are so wise!! And you are right. I grew up with the Wall Street mentality, career, career, career. I lived for the office 24/7 for 22 years. Do not fall in the trap, be smarter than I was. DO you know what really I cry for? When I was 24 my pet was dying, but I needed to go to work (soooooo vital). That pet died in my sister hands, and I still feel guilty, b/c he was mine.
Time is the most precious thing: do not let others make you think yours has no value.
Good luck!

Manus Domini
02-21-2011, 08:01 PM
Manus_Domini:


It's actually Life, Liberty, and Property but Property became controversial with slave and all.



You're thinking of John Locke, the Declaration of Independence has "Pursuit of Happiness" not "Property", and the slave issue wasn't raised till the Constitution

GetBetterer
02-21-2011, 08:52 PM
Manus_Domini:
You're thinking of John Locke, the Declaration of Independence has "Pursuit of Happiness" not "Property", and the slave issue wasn't raised till the Constitution

Well John Locke was greater than the Constitution, so ha! Just kidding, yeah I got my philosophe's (not philosophers, not a typo) mixed up there for a second.

salsainglesa
02-21-2011, 10:08 PM
salsainglesa:

Too Long;Didn't Read - Salsainglesa, your belief of mercantilism is incorrect.



The first one you didn't read. If you had, you would have noticed I was talking about human relationships being treated as we were in a human market where we are the product. Not as in a comercial exchange.

About the abuses made in name of progress by the means of capitalism, well, its all over, factories in poor countries, explotation of kids, the meat industry, the oil industry, the weapons industry, war as business, you know that kind of stuff.


If we're machines of production, then what's the other way to go to help others.


There are ways, active ways, changing your habits for example. Consumption habits, mental habits. being happy, stable and responsible of your own actions and thoughts has a big impact on your enviroment and in the circumstance.

Check out the site :

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade

KenC
02-21-2011, 10:52 PM
KenC:


What is this? I don't even...

There's a reason why we have TARIFFS which are still used today worldwide.

I see I lost you by your response. My overall point is that we have to stop clinging to aging archaic governmental/economic systems like capitalism and socialism. Today we face problems never before imagined, like irreversible environmental damage, yet we still try to solve those problems with old solutions. We need new solutions to correct new problems, like dangerously increasing social instability, finite planetary resources, etc.

Since today we all consider ourselves "geniuses" why can't we create a novel economic system that benefits society more than the current one? Can we create a new global economic system that benefits the majority of all earth's people while distributing earth's resources more equitably and sustainably?

Most importantly, can we create a system that makes people socially well-off instead of just economically well-off?

P.S. Don't worry, you can go on faithfully and rigidly supporting your aging ideology just like anyone who chooses to worship a Sun God can continue on. Rest assured that there are many current leading economists working on developing a post-modern economic system that can bring humanity forward into a "betterer" future instead of bringing it to collapse. Let's just hope they do it before its too late.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 12:06 AM
Salsainglesa...I swear I hope you're trolling. I really do.

Salsainglesa:
There are ways, active ways, changing your habits for example. Consumption habits, mental habits. being happy, stable and responsible of your own actions and thoughts has a big impact on your enviroment and in the circumstance.

First off, I already answered this:

GetBetterer:
The United Nations has funds, donations, and even what's known as a Millenium Development Goal by 2015 (for most of it) to store money from all the supporting member states for various projects. The countries that are developing right now are attempting to support some of the more underdeveloped countries.

So check out this website: www.un.org/millenniumgoals

That's NOT including the United Nations Peacekeeping Missions which go around the world to help out countries in need because the member states agreed to a list of treaties, agreements and much much more on these topics.

So...please read the entire post.

Salsainglesa:
The first one you didn't read. If you had, you would have noticed I was talking about human relationships being treated as we were in a human market where we are the product. Not as in a comercial exchange.

You're referring to something the thirteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution took care of.

Also, as for the Oxfam website, just by looking at one of the interactive diagrams...I'm lost, but I'll go over all of them:

1. Dumping. It shows two lands which grow the same product and the rich one becomes subsidized and encouraged to overproduce. First off, if the government subsidizes those lands, then they have to get the money from somewhere, and we all know that comes from taxes. The countries who vote on their representatives and such, would obviously heavily disagree with this, and that's just the first thing. Then the overproduction part. First off, it's difficult to even do such a thing. Land is limited and so are resources. Plus, when competing with Africa on food produce alone, it's difficult to win. Africa has some of the most fertile land possible (Nile River towns/cities being an example). But let's say it's a different product, like iPads. Well, if we create an abundance of iPads, their prices drop significant. Sure Apple can make the price high so they can sell all those iPads for the most profit, but nobody will buy them, especially with the fact that everybody would know of their abundance and exclaim for a cheaper price. Price goes down, and then Apple loses money. In the scenario the head (not the lower people) is losing. The lower people must still get paid AT LEAST a minimum wage and so forth, so nobody would intentionally overproduce, because as we learned from the Great Depression it ends up screwing everything over. Not to mention that when we do overproduce, the government ends up subsidizing to destroy, oh err um, I'm sorry, "buy" the product to reduce the high supply. Let us not forget that in an individually small market as the example I gave with the wheat and the corn is true, the bigger it gets, means we don't want people to overproduce in their field. The government in turn pays them for that amount which they must remove. Now-a-days the government usually stories it away for later use since most products that they obtain don't rot.

2. A tariff is not an intention to keep poor countries poor. Also, my second post with the economic math already explains much of this. It's also very vague on how poor countries can get rich when they have access to rich countries.

3. This is just an example of mercantilism. It's one of the flaws of mercantilism which I gave in the Louis XIV example... please read it. Also, if the goods of another country were blocked, that country itself has just lost a trade member, and as given in the example from my other post with the math, it will begin to suffer economically as well. This one actually supported capitalism, and one thing to note about capitalism is that it creates a high amount of interdependence and by blocking the "rich" country in this example, it ruins the "rich" country as well because there's a possibility of leading to a surplus and we get the same problem from 1 and 2 again.

4. Where does the pressure to work faster come from? Look, companies are not idiots. If they overproduce they know what will happen to their products (as stated in the past few examples). They're likely to suspend production if anything in the world.

5. How have richer countries split up the poorer countries? Also, if we did remove tariffs then the same thing as 1-4 happen again...

As a sidenote, notice the website didn't take into effect what would happen to rich countries, or the long term undesirable effects which history has already shown us.
=================================================
KenC:
I see I lost you by your response. My overall point is that we have to stop clinging to aging archaic governmental/economic systems like capitalism and socialism. Today we face problems never before imagined, like irreversible environmental damage, yet we still try to solve those problems with old solutions. We need new solutions to correct new problems, like dangerously increasing social instability, finite planetary resources, etc.

Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems. Just because I want to know, what are these "old solutions" we're attempting to cure these problems with?

Since today we all consider ourselves "geniuses" why can't we create a novel economic system that benefits society more than the current one? Can we create a new global economic system that benefits the majority of all earth's people while distributing earth's resources more equitably and sustainably?

Most importantly, can we create a system that makes people socially well-off instead of just economically well-off?

Ooh, ooh! I have one! How about, we make it so that those who come up with innovative products (i.e. light bulb, iPads, etc.) hire employees who work for companies. These companies then use the socialist system of benefiting the workers on a use-value system. Then, the government makes sure it's fair and proper. Ka Ching! (Hopefully we all can detect my sarcasm as there are SEVERAL flaws with this build of an economic system).

P.S. Don't worry, you can go on faithfully and rigidly supporting your aging ideology just like anyone who chooses to worship a Sun God can continue on. Rest assured that there are many current leading economists working on developing a post-modern economic system that can bring humanity forward into a "betterer" future instead of bringing it to collapse. Let's just hope they do it before its too late.

Is that also a George Carlin joke in there? Also, I can support any system but remembering Gulliver's Travels, we have to know that there will be some sort of medium of exchange.

Can we create a new global economic system that benefits the majority of all earth's people while distributing earth's resources more equitably and sustainably?

Scarcity.

Also, it's not the economic system that's supposed to
benefits society more than the current one?
That's the government's job to make sure everything is fair and all, although the U.S. had a problem in the 20th century for a time with that...

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 12:40 AM
I see I lost you by your response. My overall point is that we have to stop clinging to aging archaic governmental/economic systems like capitalism and socialism. Today we face problems never before imagined, like irreversible environmental damage, yet we still try to solve those problems with old solutions. We need new solutions to correct new problems, like dangerously increasing social instability, finite planetary resources, etc.

Since today we all consider ourselves "geniuses" why can't we create a novel economic system that benefits society more than the current one? Can we create a new global economic system that benefits the majority of all earth's people while distributing earth's resources more equitably and sustainably?

Most importantly, can we create a system that makes people socially well-off instead of just economically well-off?

P.S. Don't worry, you can go on faithfully and rigidly supporting your aging ideology just like anyone who chooses to worship a Sun God can continue on. Rest assured that there are many current leading economists working on developing a post-modern economic system that can bring humanity forward into a "betterer" future instead of bringing it to collapse. Let's just hope they do it before its too late.


there are so many assumptions in your post which cannot be proved or disproved. they are either wrong or debatable on many levels.

dont know where to start.

if you can answer the social responsibility question, everything else falls into place.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 12:44 AM
if there was a machine that could produce all material needs for humanity, will there still be a need for authority?

stanton warrior
02-22-2011, 01:08 AM
there are so many assumptions in your post which cannot be proved or disproved.

dont know where to start.

if you can answer the social responsibility question, everything else falls into place.

Actually he's spot on with many things.

From what I've seen the social responsibility thread became a collection of philiospophy and mathematical theories.

As far as I'm concerned it has completely lost touch with reality. I don't see the point in argueing so much about theory when it's the reality we should care, but that seems to be a common problem these days. People talk all day long, and well, that's about it.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 01:12 AM
Actually he's spot on with many things.

From what I've seen the social responsibility thread became a collection of philiospophy and mathematical theories.

As far as I'm concerned it has completely lost touch with reality. I don't see the point in argueing so much about theory when it's the reality we should care, but that seems to be a common problem these days. People talk all day long, and well, that's about it.


your core philosophy branches out to all your everyday decisions whether you are concious of it or not.

i m a very practical person. i wouldnt learn something if there is no use.

you know why you asked that question in the first place. its cognitive dissonance. your core philosophy conflicted with you what you observed in reality. its a very powerful tool to persuade and brain-wash people. it works with girls...........sometimes

stanton warrior
02-22-2011, 01:23 AM
your core philosophy branches out to all your everyday decisions whether you are concious of it or not.

i m a very practical person. i wouldnt learn something if there is no use.

you know why you asked that question in the first place. its cognitive dissonance. your core philosophy conflicted with you what you observed in reality. its a very powerful tool to persuade and brain-wash people. it works with girls...........sometimes

Sure I know. I asked the questions because I wanted to know what kind of excuses people have not to help. Not very good ones, that's for sure.

Brainwashing people is not what I'm interested in, not in the least.
I wouldn't ever, to put it bluntly, **** with someones head to actually get to **** them.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 02:13 AM
Sure I know. I asked the questions because I wanted to know what kind of excuses people have not to help. Not very good ones, that's for sure.

Brainwashing people is not what I'm interested in, not in the least.
I wouldn't ever, to put it bluntly, **** with someones head to actually get to **** them.

i dont mean it that way.

your brain has many conflicting thoughts and observations. your philosophy tries to align them. just my speculation.

its an excuse to some and reason for others. depends on a lot of things.

stanton warrior
02-22-2011, 03:09 AM
i dont mean it that way.

you brain has many conflicting thoughts and observations. your philosophy tries to align them. just my speculation.

its an excuse to some and reason for others. depends on a lot of things.

I don't think it depends on a lot of things, it's about moral standards, not much else.

It's not really about conflicting thoughts either. I know what to think about the current situation, it's just that acting accordingly is complicated.

The longer I think about it, the less I want to be just another consumer lemming with shallow horizon. We can't save the world, it's too late for that, the geopolitical situation is only going to get worse too.

But it's possible to change the fate of individuals for the better. That's what I want to do, that's what everyone who can should.

It's of no use to point fingers at others with more money. It's about whetever you can and want to look away, everyone has to decide that for himself.

I live in Zurich, one of the wealthiest cities in the world, everyday I see people that have everything and yet lack many things.
I see so many lies, so much fakeness, so much longing for superficial appreciation, so much hidden sadness, so much fear to show weakness.
Again, there's a lot of good too, but it's in no relation.

I don't claim to have found all the answers, but I'll try. That's why I quit my 90k job yesterday.
I'm going to give myself some time to find out what I want to do with my life, without outside pressure, without responsibilities and deadlines at work. Thankfully I got the support of my family and closest friends.

I'm going to travel the world for at least 6 months, I'm convinced it's going to give me a new perspective.

I worked for banks for over 4 years and it's definately not how I want to spend 50 hours a week. Which brings us back to the topic, money IS overrated.

If you can pay the bills and have something left for hobbies and vacations (it doesn't need to be a 5* hotel far away) more money isn't going to change a whole lot.
In my case I needed to have it first to really understand that.

KenC
02-22-2011, 05:06 AM
... Just because I want to know, what are these "old solutions" we're attempting to cure these problems with?

It's really simple. If government creates problems, such as social instability, then it is probably not a good idea to ask the government to fix the social stability problem. If free market capitalism creates a lot of environmental damage, then its probably not a good idea to use free market capitalism to fix the environmental problem. Creating tradeable cap and trade permits is a solution of capitalism, but it does nothing to eliminate pollution, it just controls and distributes it in a way that money can be made off of it. In many ways the Federal Reserve has made a complete mess out of the monetary system. Should we trust them to fix their own problems, at their expense? Good luck with that. They make a lot of money when they make a mess of things.

Anyway, this stuff is really very serious and is beyond the scope of a tennis forum. What I really should be saying here is for common people like ourselves to prepare for the day when all this mess finally unravels. If we were to stop occupying our minds with Lady Gaga's latest stupidity and start to really think about where we are going, we will start to understand that all is not OK, and things probably aren't going to get better, in fact there is the potential that things will get a whole lot worse. Are we prepared for that?

retlod
02-22-2011, 06:05 AM
Money,
So they say,
Is the root of all evil today.

But if you ask for a raise
It's no surprise
That they're giving none away.

--Pink Floyd

dlk
02-22-2011, 06:23 AM
http://www.lyricsbox.com/ojays-lyrics-for-the-love-of-money-74l2rfl.html

Manus Domini
02-22-2011, 06:27 AM
Manus_Domini:


Well John Locke was greater than the Constitution, so ha! Just kidding, yeah I got my philosophe's (not philosophers, not a typo) mixed up there for a second.

lol I've done that before with Aristotle and Socrates lol

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 06:47 AM
mr get betterer, I was by no means trolling. I am checking the website you sent me just now, I'll get back to you on that.

It is pretty evident you have the theory all sorted out, but it appears you live in an ideal world where all things work as they are intended and expected. In real world practice, where there is lots of violence and abuse, the sad truth is that although the economic system is at works, it is not actually functioning all that well for the vast majority of people.

It seems that in the place you live you don't have a corrupt government and you posses a fair judicial system, not that it would be needed since every rule is enforced by an intrinsic motivation of every individual, and every one is convinced that the well being of the others is the only means for their own wellbeing.
Its seems it is a wonderful place. Do you guys like immigrants over there? May I go? What planet is that?

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 06:56 AM
KenC and stanton warrior, what would you believe are the means that could lead to a significant change?

I believe that changing our individual approach can lead to a better situation, if we got in this mess, little by little, there is no other way out other than little by little, and person to person... but the change will be noticed with time. Hell, I am only accountable for my own actions, and so is everyone.

stanton warrior
02-22-2011, 07:23 AM
KenC and stanton warrior, what would you believe are the means that could lead to a significant change?
For a truely significant change it would take the support of many, many people. Hundreds of millions all over the globe.
Because the elite isn't interested in significant change, and they decide.

But if you help just one (I know it sounds like a cliché) it makes a significant difference for that one individiual.

I believe that changing our individual approach can lead to a better situation, if we got in this mess, little by little, there is no other way out other than little by little, and person to person... but the change will be noticed with time. Hell, I am only accountable for my own actions, and so is everyone.
All true, but what's the definition of 'own actions'?

If you buy meat from factory farming that destroys the rainsforest and creates thousands of cases of animal cruelty every day, aren't you accountable as well?

It doesn't end there, it goes for pretty much everything you can buy.
Everywhere you're guilty of indirectly supporting ecological devastation, animal cruelty, or inhuman laborwork.

If people were less indifferent about those things we'd be in a much better situation. Because if you don't fund those actions with your money, the people and corporations behind them would run out of $ sooner or later.

Dedans Penthouse
02-22-2011, 08:12 AM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/preacher_roe_autograph.jpg
http://wvbr.com/images/uploads/soapbox.jpg

stanton warrior
02-22-2011, 08:22 AM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/preacher_roe_autograph.jpg
http://wvbr.com/images/uploads/soapbox.jpg

Any flaw in my arguments? Or is that just your way of saying "you're not getting any of my money!"?

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 08:38 AM
All true, but what's the definition of 'own actions'?



Exactly what you stated would be a good definition, being responsible for our actions is taking away our burden from others. Its knowing that your actions and every thought affect you and the rest. Its interdependence.
Acknowledging that every action (and thoughts , wich are actions aswell) have consecuences.
Also that we are not omniscient of this consecuences and we posses a limited knowledge of things. but at the same time, we can live under principles of not harming other beings through any ways that we are aware of.
So, being more aware would be an active way of changing the world, and being more aware is no easy task. It takes work, and it is not a work that anyone will pay you to do, but that will have an immense gain for you and every sensitive being.

Observing our own humanity will lead us to recognize humanity in the rest of the people. Observing our own shortcomings will lead to recognition in everyone else's. The same happens with emotions and the physical part.

It's geting to a more congruent state of being wich will lead to a better understanding, less biased by our own wishes.

The methods of observation can be varied

KenC
02-22-2011, 09:33 AM
KenC and stanton warrior, what would you believe are the means that could lead to a significant change?

Honestly, I don't think we can change anything at this late point. The party's winding down and soon we will face the difficult task of cleanup. And the creditors who financed the party will want their money plus interest. But hey, it was a helluva' party!

What can we do? Now we should start preparing for the day after the party, and make sure we never throw a party like that ever again. After the party we should take things like sustainable development seriously. But most importantly, we should start to learn how to cooperate with each other instead of compete against each other in order to make a better world. Ruthlessly competing against each other is what got us into this mess. Cooperation is the only thing that can get us out of it.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 11:17 AM
I don't think it depends on a lot of things, it's about moral standards, not much else.


why do people have different moral standards?

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 11:20 AM
Honestly, I don't think we can change anything at this late point. The party's winding down and soon we will face the difficult task of cleanup. And the creditors who financed the party will want their money plus interest. But hey, it was a helluva' party!

What can we do? Now we should start preparing for the day after the party, and make sure we never throw a party like that ever again. After the party we should take things like sustainable development seriously. But most importantly, we should start to learn how to cooperate with each other instead of compete against each other in order to make a better world. Ruthlessly competing against each other is what got us into this mess. Cooperation is the only thing that can get us out of it.

what is your source?

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 11:45 AM
what is your source?

I believe his source, among other things are rational thinking and observation.
I agree about cooperation as a needed change in paradigm

here's a cool article.
http://www.rc.org/publications/present_time/pt94/pt94_07_ps.html

KenC
02-22-2011, 11:51 AM
what is your source?

I was asked what I believe, and that is what I replied. If you are looking for facts I suggest you start here at the US Debt Clock (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) to see where the party is at the moment. There is a wealth of information on sustainable development, and I can suggest starting by reading The Earth Charter (http://www.earthcharterus.org/the-charter/the-earth-charter). Then if you are still interested I can recommend Great Transition (http://www.gtinitiative.org/documents/Great_Transitions.pdf) by Paul Raskin et. al.

KenC
02-22-2011, 12:04 PM
here's a cool article.
http://www.rc.org/publications/present_time/pt94/pt94_07_ps.html

That is a good article. Thanks.

r2473
02-22-2011, 12:14 PM
Honestly, I don't think we can change anything at this late point. The party's winding down and soon we will face the difficult task of cleanup. And the creditors who financed the party will want their money plus interest. But hey, it was a helluva' party!

What can we do? Now we should start preparing for the day after the party, and make sure we never throw a party like that ever again. After the party we should take things like sustainable development seriously. But most importantly, we should start to learn how to cooperate with each other instead of compete against each other in order to make a better world. Ruthlessly competing against each other is what got us into this mess. Cooperation is the only thing that can get us out of it.

We aren't much worse than other leading industrialized countries:

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

sureshs
02-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Money is everything.

As Mark Twain said: I have been rich and I have been poor, and rich is better.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 03:54 PM
suresh:

As Mark Twain said: I have been rich and I have been poor, and rich is better.

Twain was also a satirical person. Ever read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Hilarious novels.

Salsainglesa:
I believe his source, among other things are rational thinking and observation.

I'm going to talk all philosopholically (mistyped on purpose) to respond to this part of the quote.

Is thinking rational? After all, it is only what your eyes and your mind perceive to be real. Your brain accepting electrical signals. Is what you see something to be rationally proven? Is what you feel also something to be rationally proven? When all these enter into a person's mind, they think, or as we think they think, and therefore is thinking rational?

It is pretty evident you have the theory all sorted out, but it appears you live in an ideal world where all things work as they are intended and expected. In real world practice, where there is lots of violence and abuse, the sad truth is that although the economic system is at works, it is not actually functioning all that well for the vast majority of people.

There's abuse in any system. I'm simply defending Capitalism -- but if you want me to defend Socialism or another economic standard that has benefits, I can. There's abuse in the idea of not having a medium of exchange too. This means that instead of giving some paper money and coins for a gallon of milk, I give...what exactly?

It seems that in the place you live you don't have a corrupt government and you posses a fair judicial system, not that it would be needed since every rule is enforced by an intrinsic motivation of every individual, and every one is convinced that the well being of the others is the only means for their own wellbeing.
Its seems it is a wonderful place. Do you guys like immigrants over there? May I go? What planet is that?

The government is kept in check via 3 branches: The Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress) and the Judicial (Supreme Court of the United States). It's very well balanced, but not perfect (and I never said it was). But that's the government system -- not the economic so please remember that. What you're asking for is a pure 100% democracy, which isn't going to end well. By using representatives, a lot of the radical people aren't in the system. A democracy is difficult -- and near impossible -- to use because you're asking for each person to get their opinion stated and heard and their desires granted. The needs for everybody are near-impossible.
=================================================
Anyways, one reason I believe some of you are trolling is because some questions haven't been answered yet and the questions are being ignored:

pushing wins:
if there was a machine that could produce all material needs for humanity, will there still be a need for authority?

So many of my questions haven't been answered yet from previous posts but I'll use them as weapons later on.

stanton_warrior:
The longer I think about it, the less I want to be just another consumer lemming with shallow horizon. We can't save the world, it's too late for that, the geopolitical situation is only going to get worse too.

United Nations says different.

But it's possible to change the fate of individuals for the better. That's what I want to do, that's what everyone who can should.

But if we can't save the world...then how are you going to help them?

All true, but what's the definition of 'own actions'?

If you buy meat from factory farming that destroys the rainforest and creates thousands of cases of animal cruelty every day, aren't you accountable as well?

What kind of car do you drive? O_o

Also, how does getting meat destroy a rainforest? It's chopping up an animal...how, how is that related to deforestation (which the United Nations is by the way slowing and preventing in certain countries)?

Killing for food isn't animal cruelty; otherwise all but the vegans and herbivores are the only innocent.

The United Nations covers most of the topics you’re thinking of. They’ve been taking care of it since the 1950’s. We’re funding it with taxes, which the governments send to the United Nations.

Also, you seem to be missing the fact that you’re also “supporting these devastations” just by having a computer to type on, clothes on your back and intellect.

KenC:
It's really simple. If government creates problems, such as social instability, then it is probably not a good idea to ask the government to fix the social stability problem. If free market capitalism creates a lot of environmental damage, then its probably not a good idea to use free market capitalism to fix the environmental problem.

1. How does Capitalism create a heavy amount of pollution (also, let us remember that this thread is about money)?
2. Under what economic system does China run?
3. Does China create a LOT of pollution? Looks like there's an example of a not-so-Capitalistic economic system creating lots of pollution. Doesn't seem like it's only Capitalism after all.
4. If we reduce production from pollution-heavy machinery so they cannot distribute and will not overproduce (making their stuff cheap as crap and worthless of course as we obviously read in my post), then the factories slow production, less pollution and how can money be made off of that? I'm referring to:
Creating tradeable cap and trade permits is a solution of capitalism, but it does nothing to eliminate pollution, it just controls and distributes it in a way that money can be made off of it.
5. My example says the government would keep large businesses(and the website Salsainglesa also said that as well) in check and they're to keep the economy from taking over the government. A government with social stability problems is not related to many economic problems, especially with the United Nation member states signing off on certain agreements to prevent these. If the government isolated itself like North Korea, good luck trying to get in and fix it. The only way I can see you "infiltrating" them is to talk with their sons while they're learning in Switzerland or some other neutral country so you can influence them (also, I wouldn't recommend even attempting to answer this as it's a red herring).

Anyway, this stuff is really very serious and is beyond the scope of a tennis forum.

Um...are you generalizing that people on a Tennis forum cannot understand serious matters? -_- If that is true, you do realize you're on the list, and near the bottom, right?

If we were to stop occupying our minds with Lady Gaga's latest stupidity and start to really think about where we are going, we will start to understand that all is not OK, and things probably aren't going to get better, in fact there is the potential that things will get a whole lot worse.

Maybe if we stopped occupying our time with a Tennis forum because those on a Tennis forum lack the knowledge to understand serious problems, things could get a whole lot better.

Cooperation is the only thing that can get us out of it. Looks like that’s a +1 for Capitalism.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 04:05 PM
Oh and about the Federal Reserve, how has it been failing right now? First off, the monetary system is not the only system which influences the economic system.

There's a board of directors which is the head of some banks in the U.S. (can't remember all of them specifically) but they gather their intellect together to make sure the U.S. doesn't get into an economic s**thole. If the U.S. is in an inflationary time period, they use tight monetary policy (you can Google this yourself) and vice versa (recessionary ==> expansionary).

sureshs
02-22-2011, 04:09 PM
There is nothing like enough money. People who have less money limit their options, that is all. They make necessity into a virtue. If you need some money, you also need more money, and so on. What is more to you maybe less for others and vice versa.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 04:43 PM
I believe his source, among other things are rational thinking and observation.
I agree about cooperation as a needed change in paradigm

here's a cool article.
http://www.rc.org/publications/present_time/pt94/pt94_07_ps.html

as milos' coach says, what cant get measured cant get done.

you know the 80/20 rule. 80 percent for work is done by 20% of the people.

what is it that you want? could you got to be more specific? how can it be measured?


currently, the silent majority in developed countries wants to maintain status quo. until we reach the tipping point, your best solution is to join the system. and if you cant get a piece of the action, you are the one to blame, not the system. the system works for the majority.

Manus Domini
02-22-2011, 05:13 PM
We aren't much worse than other leading industrialized countries:

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

Ever heard of the Great Depression? We are headed in that direction, especially with the Tea Party coming to power.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 05:56 PM
Manus_Domini:
Ever heard of the Great Depression? We are headed in that direction, especially with the Tea Party coming to power.

Um...what? We just got out of the recession (well the U.S. did anyways). Therefore we can't head in that direction for quite some time again.

Also, the Tea Party is a heavily conservative / libertarian group which supports reduced government spending, lower / no taxes to a certain degree, reducing the national debt and the federal budget deficit. They also want the Constitution to be mainly interpreted as it was in it's original form (called originalism, so original right?).

Manus Domini
02-22-2011, 06:04 PM
Manus_Domini:


Um...what? We just got out of the recession (well the U.S. did anyways). Therefore we can't head in that direction for quite some time again.

Haha, no we are headed in that direction. First comes recession, then we pull out, then we still keep spending and go in FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR deeper than we were before. Plus, we are still in a recession...

TheBoom
02-22-2011, 06:06 PM
As long as you have enough for a reasonable life and good friends you are doing good

dlk
02-22-2011, 06:12 PM
Haha, no we are headed in that direction. First comes recession, then we pull out, then we still keep spending and go in FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR deeper than we were before. Plus, we are still in a recession...

Golly God's Hand, you really how to bum a guy out.:) or should I say:(

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 06:25 PM
Manus_Domini:
Haha, no we are headed in that direction. First comes recession, then we pull out, then we still keep spending and go in FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR deeper than we were before. Plus, we are still in a recession...

Well the U.S. is out of the recession, don't know where you live, so if you're still there, have fun.

Secondly, the Federal Reserve and the government has protocols to prevent going deeper into recessions and since the 80's this has been our most recent recession. So we went from 1776 to 1929, 153 years of no Great Depression. 50 or so years later, you're saying we're going to be in another Great Depression? Proof please.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 06:35 PM
Manus_Domini:


Well the U.S. is out of the recession, don't know where you live, so if you're still there, have fun.

Secondly, the Federal Reserve and the government has protocols to prevent going deeper into recessions and since the 80's this has been our most recent recession. So we went from 1776 to 1929, 153 years of no Great Depression. 50 or so years later, you're saying we're going to be in another Great Depression? Proof please.

with such arguments, this thread will go in circles forever.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 06:50 PM
I just want some statistics.

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 07:09 PM
I just want some statistics.

going in circles. give it up. find some purpose in life some other way.

more qualified intellectuals are debating about this at the moment. hence, the movement in the stock market.

economics is a social question, more specifically a wicked problem. are you familar with wicked problems?

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 07:16 PM
Depends on the wicked problem. :)

pushing_wins
02-22-2011, 07:18 PM
Depends on the wicked problem. :)

as expected. circles.

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 08:34 PM
There's abuse in any system. I'm simply defending Capitalism -- but if you want me to defend Socialism or another economic standard that has benefits, I can.



That seems to be the admission of trolling.

On a side note, not all thoughts are rational, don't worry, all the ideas within the system of beliefs that states and big companies feed to people aren't. And some people still think it is the truth. But they are thoughts nevertheless.

Maybe some people aknowledge their own biases, you never know!

do you think you have a biased opinion?

salsainglesa
02-22-2011, 08:39 PM
about statistics let me help you

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=poverty+statistics

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 09:54 PM
salsainglesa:
about statistics let me help you

Pushing was right about those hyperbolas...

That seems to be the admission of trolling.

Explain how so.

On a side note, not all thoughts are rational, don't worry, all the ideas within the system of beliefs that states and big companies feed to people aren't. And some people still think it is the truth. But they are thoughts nevertheless.

Thoughts themselves are not rational was my point. Descartes agreed with me. He believed using the senses (eyes, ears, taste, etc.) was irrational and the rest of the explanation was in my previous post.

KenC
02-22-2011, 11:38 PM
@GetBetterer: you posed three questions:

1. How does Capitalism create a heavy amount of pollution (also, let us remember that this thread is about money)?
2. Under what economic system does China run?
3. Does China create a LOT of pollution? Looks like there's an example of a not-so-Capitalistic economic system creating lots of pollution. Doesn't seem like it's only Capitalism after all.

First let's get to #2. Do you really think China is still communist? Many would now consider that China is morphing toward neo-fascist (do a google search on China and fascism). They were a communist regime that over time embraced capitalism but still remain a one-party government and use a lot of force on its own citizens to maintain a national identity. Remember, a big tenet of communism is no private ownership. I would certainly not consider China to be a Communist state anymore, and they have adopted an aggressive capitalist system for their economic system. In their "communist" period they had a big problem with producing enough goods for the country. They turned to capitalism because of its ability to solve "the production problem".

#3. Yes, China is producing an enormous amount of pollution.

#1. Let's have some fun with this one. You want to build a business around creating the next new sensation called iJunk. You raise capital, build a factory, hire a 100 employees, make sure you respect the local environment and start producing and selling your iJunk. You are a respectable American businessman that employs Americans while demonstrating a concern for pollution and keeping the environment clean. Bravo!

Now comes along the competitors who see a chance to make a healthy return on capital by competing against you, and I decide to compete against you. So, I raise capital, build the factory, hire 100 employees and want to appear ecologically concerned as well. I find I can build iJunk at the same quality and price as you. But I am competitive instead of cooperative and want more profit and market share than you. The first thing I do is fire 80 production employees and replace them with robots because that reduces my costs and increases my profits. While I am finding ways to reduce my costs I see that my concern for the environment is costing me money and I reduce my pollution controls to the bare minimum. Now I can produce iJunk much more cheaply than you and drop my price for the same quality and beat you in the marketplace.

Now that I am producing much more than you my demand is very high and I have to increase production capacity and global distribution capacity. Why not pay Chinese people $1 a day instead of expensive Americans to watch over the robots that produce my iJunk. And, the Chinese have much lower pollution standards and I can save even more money by not having to keep the EPA happy, and I can drop my prices again just to increase my market share. China here I come!

Now you are in trouble. My price is just too low and you face bankruptcy. You have two choices, go bankrupt or become more efficient with capital. So, now you have to move everything over to China just to remain competitive with me. When faced with bankruptcy, no one really cares about the global environment, or the 200 people who just lost their jobs. The profit motive and intense global competition demand that you and I make socially undesirable decisions.

Now can you see why I say that capitalism is a great system to encourage production in times of scarcity, but is a lousy system for the communities living in an age of abundance that want to enjoy a nice standard of living? They lose their jobs but at least they can now get their iJunk at a lower price.

That there is real world capitalism in action today, not economic theory.

GetBetterer
02-22-2011, 11:49 PM
What country are we setting up iJunk in?

KenC
02-23-2011, 12:02 AM
What country are we setting up iJunk in?

Well, let's try to benefit America and Americans and set it up in your hometown.

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 12:07 AM
Excellent.

Before that:
KenC:
First let's get to #2. Do you really think China is still communist? Many would now consider that China is morphing toward neo-fascist (do a google search on China and fascism). They were a communist regime that over time embraced capitalism but still remain a one-party government and use a lot of force on its own citizens to maintain a national identity. Remember, a big tenet of communism is no private ownership. I would certainly not consider China to be a Communist state anymore, and they have adopted an aggressive capitalist system for their economic system. In their "communist" period they had a big problem with producing enough goods for the country. They turned to capitalism because of its ability to solve "the production problem".

China uses capitalism in areas like Hong Kong that the British took over because they saw it's success. Yet they're still very very communist in their ideals as it has successfully given it's citizens the jobs of their parents, and was partly responsible for part of China's booming economy.

Also, we need more specifics into iJunk. What do they specialize in, cell phones, iPods? These all vary into the economy of the company.

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 12:30 AM
United Nations says different.
And that changes facts how?

But if we can't save the world...then how are you going to help them?
Is that a serious question?
Don't you see that the overall state of the planet and the well-being of individuals is not the same?

What kind of car do you drive? O_o
I let you guess, it's one of those two:

- 1000 HP Hummer H1
- I don't own a car

Also, how does getting meat destroy a rainforest? It's chopping up an animal...how, how is that related to deforestation (which the United Nations is by the way slowing and preventing in certain countries)?
I don't feel like explaining the world for you. You think the food falls from the sky?

Killing for food isn't animal cruelty; otherwise all but the vegans and herbivores are the only innocent.
Not by definition. But I suggest you watch "Food Inc." and then we talk again.

The United Nations covers most of the topics you’re thinking of. They’ve been taking care of it since the 1950’s. We’re funding it with taxes, which the governments send to the United Nations.
How did that, as one example, change the whole problem of overfishing? Which btw is one of the biggest threats for humanity.

Also, you seem to be missing the fact that you’re also “supporting these devastations” just by having a computer to type on, clothes on your back and intellect.
Thought-terminating cliché *YAWN*

If I throw my computer and all my clothes away, how does that bring any tree or other destroyed eco-system back?

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 12:36 AM
why do people have different moral standards?

What's with you and all those one-liners? How does it matter anyway?

KenC
02-23-2011, 01:02 AM
@GetBetter

China abandoned Communism in 1978 and embraced capitalism under a totalitarian government. We have been taught since gradeschool that China is communist, but it isn't so anymore. In fact, there never was a truly communist state. Russia and China both failed to achieve it. Both have since adopted, to a limited degree, capitalism under a powerful and controlling one party system. Accept it or not, China is migrating to nationalist fascism. So is Russia. In retrospect, I believe governments used the ideology of communism to dupe its citizens into suporting a strong, all powerful government and never really intended to progress toward the more utopian end result. They just wanted all the power and never intended to give it up.

As for the specifics of iJunk, can you please specify how it matters? OK, for the sake of argument, let's just say it is a flashy new mp3 player. How can you produce it locally at a better price with the EPA and OSHA guarding your production? Do you really think you can produce it more competitively than I can in China? Basic tenet of capitalism: capital will always seek its best rate of return. It doesn't care about American jobs or polluting China.

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 01:09 AM
stanton_warrior:
And that changes facts how?

If you check the statistics, you'll notice a decline of deforestation and pollution (although pollution is smaller) from the 1960's to now (exclude Napalm from Vietnam). A lot of it was done by the United Nations.

Is that a serious question?
Don't you see that the overall state of the planet and the well-being of individuals is not the same?

It is a serious question. You said the planet's screwed over to s**t, and that you can help. I was wondering how you're going to do that if it's inevitably going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

I let you guess, it's one of those two:

- 1000 HP Hummer H1
- I don't own a car


Satirically I choose the Hummer.

I don't feel like explaining the world for you. You think the food falls from the sky?

Okay then, I will.
1. Kill animal for food
2. Skin
3. Chop
4. Cook
5. Delivar

We're essentially doing what the cavemen did a long time ago on mass productive scales -- and I don't recall cavemen creating pollution.

Not by definition. But I suggest you watch "Food Inc." and then we talk again.

I honestly have not seen it yet, only the trailers but it smells politically biased in my opinion.

In addition, I'm only reading the Wikipedia summary but imagine how many businesses fail (jobs lost too), the decrease in food supply, the increase in prices, and the calamity that can follow. Not to mention the movie focuses primarily on America (from the trailer and Wikipedia description) and therefore doesn't quite address the facts of capitalism in the ideals that it is interdependent on other countries as well. Also, what is the FDA for then?

The film's director, Robert Kenner, has denied attacking the current system of producing food, noting in one interview: "All we want is transparency and a good conversation about these things." In the same interview, he went on to say, "...the whole system is made possible by government subsidies to a few huge crops like corn. It's a form of socialism that's making us sick.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/30/roflolmao128593243659667336.jpg

I give the director bonus points for being a modern muckraker though.

How did that, as one example, change the whole problem of overfishing? Which btw is one of the biggest threats for humanity.

Several provisions (and illegal Somali pirates) have reduced overfishing. Also, let's not get into ANOTHER topic as it seems we're deviating farther and farther away from the real debate -- money being overrated.

If I throw my computer and all my clothes away, how does that bring any tree back?

Law of conservation of mass, and time.

Also, my question from my last post wasn't answered (not the one replying to salsainglesa):

If we don't have a medium of exchange, what do we trade? If I want groceries from Wal-Mart, what do I give? I'm not giving myself that easily (well, maybe).

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 01:27 AM
stanton_warrior:
What's with you and all those one-liners? How does it matter anyway?

Yes yes...one-liners...

KenC:
China abandoned Communism in 1978 and embraced capitalism under a totalitarian government. We have been taught since gradeschool that China is communist, but it isn't so anymore. In fact, there never was a truly communist state. Russia and China both failed to achieve it. Both have since adopted, to a limited degree, capitalism under a powerful and controlling one party system. Accept it or not, China is migrating to nationalist fascism. So is Russia. In retrospect, I believe governments used the ideology of communism to dupe its citizens into suporting a strong, all powerful government and never really intended to progress toward the more utopian end result. They just wanted all the power and never intended to give it up.

As for the specifics of iJunk, can you please specify how it matters? OK, for the sake of argument, let's just say it is a flashy new mp3 player. How can you produce it locally at a better price with the EPA and OSHA guarding your production? Do you really think you can produce it more competitively than I can in China? Basic tenet of capitalism: capital will always seek its best rate of return. It doesn't care about American jobs or polluting China.

I stand corrected. China did abandon Communism (can't remember the year 100% from my history classes). Later, they adopted a variant of it called Maoism.

As for iJunk, it matters because some items are more elastic than others, and others aren't so elastic. If it's an mp3 player, thank goodness! MP3 players are somewhat in demand, not too expensive and not too pricey but still a decent price. I'm clearly not running a monopoly because there are other MP3 sellers out there, and you join in on the competition (somehow, although it's likely to be difficult). In addition, monopolies in the long term run out of business and fail even if an invention holds a patent with the owner of the monopoly for some time. If we have competitors, we are likely to succeed since there are substitutes, and price setters out there determined by demand. Notice competing companies have been very successful - LG and Samsung, UPS and FedEx (although they required some government provisions too) amongst others. As for:
Basic tenet of capitalism: capital will always seek its best rate of return.
Capitalism seeks global trade for interdependence and beneficial output (as shown in one of my first few posts with math by the way). Best rate of return is self-interest. That's in all economic systems, and if not, taken into account into all economic systems. As for China and their pollution, they have significantly reduced pollution and so they're still Maoist and their factories are helping save the Earth more, so it's going to affect any business with a factory in China.

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 01:28 AM
If you check the statistics, you'll notice a decline of deforestation and pollution (although pollution is smaller) from the 1960's to now (exclude Napalm from Vietnam). A lot of it was done by the United Nations.
Deforastation isn't our biggest problem, but it's still far from solved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Rates

It is a serious question. You said the planet's screwed over to s**t, and that you can help. I was wondering how you're going to do that if it's inevitably going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
Well we are all going to die, one way or another. The question is how we live up to that point.
Even if we were the last generation it doesn't mean there's no point giving people a life worth living.


Okay then, I will.
1. Kill animal for food
2. Skin
3. Chop
4. Cook
5. Delivar

You missed step 0.

We're essentially doing what the cavemen did a long time ago on mass productive scales -- and I don't recall cavemen creating pollution.
Again, take the time to watch the movie "Food Inc." and then try to tell me with a straight face that this is what the caveman did.


I honestly have not seen it yet, only the trailers but it smells politically biased in my opinion.
You know it's illegal to talk bad about the american meat industry? THAT's political bias.

In addition, I'm only reading the Wikipedia summary but imagine how many businesses fail (jobs lost too), the decrease in food supply, the increase in prices, and the calamity that can follow. Not to mention the movie focuses primarily on America (from the trailer and Wikipedia description) and therefore doesn't quite address the facts of capitalism in the ideals that it is interdependent on other countries as well. Also, what is the FDA for then?
Isn't the FDA the organisation that made it possible to sell you unlabled GMO food?
I read even some sort of frankenstein-fish can soon be sold in the U.S., without having to inform the customers that it is genetically modified.

Several provisions (and illegal Somali pirates) have reduced overfishing. Also, let's not get into ANOTHER topic as it seems we're deviating farther and farther away from the real debate -- money being overrated.
You obviously have no idea about the current situation.

If we don't have a medium of exchange, what do we trade? If I want groceries from Wal-Mart, what do I give? I'm not giving myself that easily (well, maybe).
I never said there should be no monetary system at all.
Besides, you could always trade services and goods, worked for tousands of years.

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 01:42 AM
stanton_warrior:
Isn't the FDA the organisation that made it possible to sell you unlabled GMO food?
I read even some sort of frankenstein-fish can soon be sold in the U.S., without having to inform the customers that it is genetically modified.

It doesn't mean the FDA doesn't check the food. They have specific regulations you know.

Frankenfish? Is that the boneless salmon or whatever (might've been trout)?

Well we are all going to die, one way or another. The question is how we live up to that point.
Even if we were the last generation it doesn't mean there's no point giving people a life worth living.

You're orbiting the question but not quite there yet.

You know it's illegal to talk bad about the american meat industry? THAT's political bias.

I plea the 1st and also recall that it's not allowed for slander either written or spoken (there were different vocab words for each). Basically what it means is, I can't go and call somebody a child molester (i.e. a politician, teacher, etc.) because they'll be convicted but not charged and it goes on their record and defames them, hence slander. You're not "supposed" to slander private corporations. Doesn't mean you can't. Slander is different from "talking bad." The movie is an example.

You obviously have no idea about the current situation.

Go read the millions of UN treaties that the countries are still sticking to and implementing in their government. Also, the Coast Guard takes care of much governmental regulation for treaties and provisions. I made my statement short because I thought you already knew about these things.

I never said there should be no monetary system at all.
Besides, you could always trade services and goods, worked for tousands of years.

Medium of Exchange != Monetary System!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Services and goods aren't always what people are looking for. I may have a chicken farm, but people don't always need or want eggs and chickens.

Also, requoting myself:
The film's director, Robert Kenner, has denied attacking the current system of producing food, noting in one interview: "All we want is transparency and a good conversation about these things." In the same interview, he went on to say, "...the whole system is made possible by government subsidies to a few huge crops like corn. It's a form of socialism that's making us sick.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/30/roflolmao128593243659667336.jpg

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 01:53 AM
It doesn't mean the FDA doesn't check the food. They have specific regulations you know.

Frankenfish? Is that the boneless salmon or whatever (might've been trout)?
They made it legal to sell pretty much all GMO's without large scale and longterm tests. I'm not sure if I would call those rules very specific.
No one has any idea if and what kind of long term effects will result.

You're orbiting the question but not quite there yet.
I don't get it.

I know people suffer, I want to help. Why should my actions depend on whetever our planet as we know it can be saved?

I plea the 1st and also recall that it's not allowed for slander either written or spoken (there were different vocab words for each). Basically what it means is, I can't go and call somebody a child molester (i.e. a politician, teacher, etc.) because they'll be convicted but not charged and it goes on their record and defames them, hence slander. You're not "supposed" to slander private corporations. Doesn't mean you can't. Slander is different from "talking bad." The movie is an example.
It's not about slander, it's illegal whetever it's a true fact or not. If I remember correctly it's also illegal to show any kind of images or video from factory farming.

Ever wonder why?
Because it might make you not want to eat your next burger..

Go read the millions of UN treaties that the countries are still sticking to and implementing in their government. Also, the Coast Guard takes care of much governmental regulation for treaties and provisions. I made my statement short because I thought you already knew about these things.
You act like the UN has actually some sort of real global power. Many fiststocks are collapsing and the all the UN does is talk. Bluefin Tuna for example will soon be gone.


Medium of Exchange != Monetary System!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Services and goods aren't always what people are looking for. I may have a chicken farm, but people don't always need or want eggs and chickens.
So what's your point? I never said we should abandon money. But it's still overrated.

Also, requoting myself:
Watch the movie, as critical as you are. Just do it, I bet you'll see things differently.

KenC
02-23-2011, 01:59 AM
@GetBetterer

You seem to be very good at going off the topic at hand and diving back into ideology and the same old go nowhere discussions.

It's apparent that you are always looking right and never have time to look ahead. Ideology is one thing, reality is another. Capitalism is a wonderful ideology just as communism was. But in practice both aren't really benefiting the majority of people today. Capitalism is benefiting China at the moment but at the rest of the world's expense. America and Europe are losing the capitalism game. There is no other easy way to put it.

Do you realize that the American stock market indexes are lower today than they were in 1999? Do realize that the American public has less savings today than they did in 1999? Do you know that the federal debt of the US is now over $14 trillion? Do you understand that this is not the US government's debt, it is your debt. The taxpayers have to pay back that debt. How much of your taxes go just to servicing the interest that debt, not paying down the principle? How do you think the American economy can somehow miraculously get going to a level sufficient to make that kind of debt negligible? How can the economy get going when robots and cheap labor make American jobs irrelevant? Even the more sophisticated jobs involving research and development are moving to China and India.

So, in order to rescue the economy today and escape from massive debt we have to spur economic growth. To spur economic growth we have to go into debt to do that. Because of that increased debt we have to spur the economy even more. Do you really think this is not a runaway economic train heading for the mother of all trainwrecks?

If you are so confident in capitalism why not invest in capitalism today. Gather all your net worth and then go heavily into debt in order to produce whatever you think you can produce locally and ultimately grow into a rich person. Just make sure it is in your hometown.

Good luck!

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 02:29 AM
stanton_warrior:
The make it legal to sell pretty much all GMO's. I'm not sure if I would call those rules very specific.
No one has any idea if and what kind of long term effects will result.

It's so prices don't go sky high, especially right now.

I don't get it.

I know people suffer, I want to help. Why should my actions depend on whetever our planet as we know it can be saved?

I'll be as direct as possible: HOW are you going to help? Please don't make a list either.

It's not about slander, it's illegal whetever it's a true fact or not. If I remember correctly it's also illegal to show any kind of images or video from factory farming.

Ever wonder why?
You might make not want to eat your next burger...

Well, double check that factory farming one and slander is illegal. Now, I don't know where you're getting the second part from. Is it a new law or something? If yes, then please cite it.

I don't really eat burgers, but when I do, they're delicious. Also you know that beef and other bovine products are 25 - 40% meat right? The rest is random flavoring stuff that we pitch in that's still safe to feed to people. Not to forget the high meat percentage products are really expensive (in my opinion) and therefore discourage buyers with cheaper, less meatier products.

You act like the UN has actually some sort of real global power. Many fiststocks are collapsing and the UN talks and talks.

You mean fish stocks right? Any statistics on these collapsing fish talks?

Also, the UN can require or suggest, and they do both. Some are required and so they're not just talk and talk.


The film's director, Robert Kenner, has denied attacking the current system of producing food, noting in one interview: "All we want is transparency and a good conversation about these things." In the same interview, he went on to say, "...the whole system is made possible by government subsidies to a few huge crops like corn. It's a form of socialism that's making us sick.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/30/roflolmao128593243659667336.jpg


This whole capitalism vs. whatever-you-want-ism debate has lead to no disagreements to socialism, and then you brought up the movie and so I just quoted an interview.

So what's your point? I never said we should abandon money. But it's still overrated.

Well I would like to hear your solution on this.

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 02:41 AM
KenC:
You seem to be very good at going off the topic at hand and diving back into ideology and the same old go nowhere discussions.

I wasn't the first to deviate into economic systems on this thread. I'm just defending one.

It's apparent that you are always looking right and never have time to look ahead. Ideology is one thing, reality is another. Capitalism is a wonderful ideology just as communism was. But in practice both aren't really benefiting the majority of people today. Capitalism is benefiting China at the moment but at the rest of the world's expense. America and Europe are losing the capitalism game. There is no other easy way to put it.

Wait...what? Capitalism relies on interdependency. China's doing okay because it's other traders are able to back them up. How are the U.S. and Europe "losing" or even able to "win" the capitalist game? What is this, I don't even...

Do you realize that the American stock market indexes are lower today than they were in 1999? Do realize that the American public has less savings today than they did in 1999? Do you know that the federal debt of the US is now over $14 trillion? Do you understand that this is not the US government's debt, it is your debt. The taxpayers have to pay back that debt. How much of your taxes go just to servicing the interest that debt, not paying down the principle? How do you think the American economy can somehow miraculously get going to a level sufficient to make that kind of debt negligible? How can the economy get going when robots and cheap labor make American jobs irrelevant? Even the more sophisticated jobs involving research and development are moving to China and India.

Did you know gas prices are cheaper now than they were before because when we actually convert the money to it's value today, we're actually getting cheaper gas? Robots and cheap labor don't take every job opportunity. The research thing with China? Where did you get this information? The India one I know, but it's the one with China I'm confused on.

So, in order to rescue the economy today and escape from massive debt we have to spur economic growth. To spur economic growth we have to go into debt to do that. Because of that increased debt we have to spur the economy even more. Do you really think this is not a runaway economic train heading for the mother of all trainwrecks?

Where does it say we have to go into debt to spur economic growth? The Federal Reserve (monetarily only) have a part of this that they take care of. Not to mention that what benefits the country may not always benefit the people and the government know about this and therefore regulate it. There are those who are going to be butthurt and out of jobs somewhere.

If you are so confident in capitalism why not invest in capitalism today. Gather all your net worth and then go heavily into debt in order to produce whatever you think you can produce locally and ultimately grow into a rich person. Just make sure it is in your hometown.

Good luck!

I'm defending capitalism. Doesn't mean it's my preferred method. There is a difference.

Also, a lot of the things you guys are saying, I have answered in previous posts, so please take the time to read them. I took the time to read through your posts.

In addition, please answer the questions that many posters (including myself) have asked in the past few posts to seem somewhat competent...

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 03:13 AM
It's so prices don't go sky high, especially right now.
Because it's proven that GMO are more economic long-term, NOT.

Do you know anything about Monsanto and the likes? It seems you know nothing about what's really going on. I'm not even american and I know considerably more about what you eat and drink.

I'll be as direct as possible: HOW are you going to help? Please don't make a list either.
Check the social responsibility thread, should be on the first few pages.


Well, double check that factory farming one and slander is illegal. Now, I don't know where you're getting the second part from. Is it a new law or something? If yes, then please cite it.

[...]
Watch the movie, and then ask those questions. I currently feel a bit like talking with a blind about colors.

Manus Domini
02-23-2011, 07:38 AM
Manus_Domini:


Well the U.S. is out of the recession, don't know where you live, so if you're still there, have fun.

Secondly, the Federal Reserve and the government has protocols to prevent going deeper into recessions and since the 80's this has been our most recent recession. So we went from 1776 to 1929, 153 years of no Great Depression. 50 or so years later, you're saying we're going to be in another Great Depression? Proof please.

NJ, Wisconsin, Ohio, and a lot of other states still have budget problems. The housing crisis is still being fixed.

It's basically like the Florida recession in 1926 that was a forerunner of the 1929 recession

Plus, we are acting the exact same way we were in the 1920s before the recession of 1929 started. People are spending more than they can afford, government is siding with business heavily, etc.

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:15 AM
What's with you and all those one-liners? How does it matter anyway?

are our motivations driven primarily by the fear of consequences?

LuckyR
02-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Money does not "buy" happiness, but a lack of a certain amount does "buy" unhappiness.

Remember those who say "it's only money" are usually talking about your money, not theirs...

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Money does not "buy" happiness, but a lack of a certain amount does "buy" unhappiness.

Remember those who say "it's only money" are usually talking about your money, not theirs...

no , its when you compare yourself with others with money

given a person has enough money to meet your basic needs.

The Wreck
02-23-2011, 12:32 PM
On a side note, not all thoughts are rational

Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. Even a murderer feels like his actions are rational. You, nor I, nor anyone else can determine what is rational or irrational, because we all have different perceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

@GetBetterer

You seem to be very good at going off the topic at hand and diving back into ideology and the same old go nowhere discussions.

It's apparent that you are always looking right and never have time to look ahead. Ideology is one thing, reality is another. Capitalism is a wonderful ideology just as communism was. But in practice both aren't really benefiting the majority of people today. Capitalism is benefiting China at the moment but at the rest of the world's expense. America and Europe are losing the capitalism game. There is no other easy way to put it.

Do you realize that the American stock market indexes are lower today than they were in 1999? Do realize that the American public has less savings today than they did in 1999? Do you know that the federal debt of the US is now over $14 trillion? Do you understand that this is not the US government's debt, it is your debt. The taxpayers have to pay back that debt. How much of your taxes go just to servicing the interest that debt, not paying down the principle? How do you think the American economy can somehow miraculously get going to a level sufficient to make that kind of debt negligible? How can the economy get going when robots and cheap labor make American jobs irrelevant? Even the more sophisticated jobs involving research and development are moving to China and India.

So, in order to rescue the economy today and escape from massive debt we have to spur economic growth. To spur economic growth we have to go into debt to do that. Because of that increased debt we have to spur the economy even more. Do you really think this is not a runaway economic train heading for the mother of all trainwrecks?

If you are so confident in capitalism why not invest in capitalism today. Gather all your net worth and then go heavily into debt in order to produce whatever you think you can produce locally and ultimately grow into a rich person. Just make sure it is in your hometown.

Good luck!

China is benefitting now, but in 50 years, they'll have fallen to a similar position as the US and Europe. Things are produced in China because it's cheaper, flat out. We have a higher standard of living here and feel the need to demand higher wages, so jobs go elsewhere. At some point, China's going to realize, they already make everything in their own country, and they'll rely less on imports and exports. Eventually their standard of living and wages will rise, and they'll begin to seek opportunities outside of the country to produce things. It's a cycle. But that's called a free market. That's capitalism. Let things play out.

Because it's proven that GMO are more economic long-term, NOT.

Do you know anything about Monsanto and the likes? It seems you know nothing about what's really going on. I'm not even american and I know considerably more about what you eat and drink.


Well, since the discussion was about genetically engineered meat (cows, fish) and Monsanto deal exclusively with GMO seeds for agriculture, I wonder if you know what you're talking about.

And yes, GMO plants are far more economic long term. Higher yields? Yes please. Disease and pest resistance? Yes please. And on top of that, GMOs are exactly the same health-wise as a regularly grown crop, perhaps even more so since pesticide use is decreased.

GMOs are perfectly fine and they are the future. It's a shame they're stuck with such a negative stigma.

stanton warrior
02-23-2011, 01:27 PM
Well, since the discussion was about genetically engineered meat (cows, fish) and Monsanto deal exclusively with GMO seeds for agriculture, I wonder if you know what you're talking about.

And yes, GMO plants are far more economic long term. Higher yields? Yes please. Disease and pest resistance? Yes please. And on top of that, GMOs are exactly the same health-wise as a regularly grown crop, perhaps even more so since pesticide use is decreased.

GMOs are perfectly fine and they are the future. It's a shame they're stuck with such a negative stigma.

Monsanto is just the best known company when it comes to GMO.

Also, it started to show that GMO seeds have a lot more disadvantages than expected. They are starting to get more vulnerable to certain species, both vermin and weeds, use of pesticide needs to be increased to get the same results.

Saying that it's exactly the same health-wise is far from a proven fact. We don't know what the long term effects are, the whole thing isn't nearly as well understood as the industry says.

Maybe we have to deal with some cancer- or infertility-aftermath in 10-20 years. Wouldn't be the first time that something that was declared safe goes wrong.

PCXL-Fan
02-23-2011, 02:06 PM
@Wreck we all know about the lobbying and influence Monsanto has on the media and regulatory systems in northamerica.

I could pick from numerous different examples but ill list just one:

Influencing government regulatory bodies:

Monsanto as you are aware tried to bribe Canadian regulatory officials into approving rBST (rBGH) in the Canadian for the initial sum of 2 million dollars a piece. The discussion didn't evolve beyond that initial offering because Dr Shiv Chopra and other regulators immediately turned down the offer and went before a nationally televised congressional hearing on CPAC, because of that bribe and pressure from a number of their politically appointed superiors in Health Canada (FDA equivalent).

As you might know the regulators were being pressured by their superiors for political, industrial and business reasons and not scientific reasons. Much of the data which the regulatory scientists requested had been carried out but continually stalled on submitting. Even the incomplete data showed health problems not only to the treated cows but potential problems for humans consuming the milk of these treated cows. And the pressure was mounting on the scientists to approve it.

Monsanto's influence isn't only on regulatory systems.
They pressured Rupert Murdock's Fox media under threats of lawsuit to kill their own rBst investigation and ended up firing the reporters involved.

Hopefully you don't rationalize ignoring my post. Nobody will be fooled by your excuse.

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 02:39 PM
@Wreck we all know about the lobbying and influence Monsanto has on the media and regulatory systems in northamerica.

I could pick from numerous different examples but ill list just one:

Influencing government regulatory bodies:

Monsanto as you are aware tried to bribe Canadian regulatory officials into approving rBST (rBGH) in the Canadian for the initial sum of 2 million dollars a piece. The discussion didn't evolve beyond that initial offering because Dr Shiv Chopra and other regulators immediately turned down the offer and went before a nationally televised congressional hearing on CPAC, because of that bribe and pressure from a number of their politically appointed superiors in Health Canada (FDA equivalent).

As you might know the regulators were being pressured by their superiors for political, industrial and business reasons and not scientific reasons. Much of the data which the regulatory scientists requested had been carried out but continually stalled on submitting. Even the incomplete data showed health problems not only to the treated cows but potential problems for humans consuming the milk of these treated cows. And the pressure was mounting on the scientists to approve it.

Monsanto's influence isn't only on regulatory systems.
They pressured Rupert Murdock's Fox media under threats of lawsuit to kill their own rBst investigation and ended up firing the reporters involved.

Hopefully you don't rationalize ignoring my post. Nobody will be fooled by your excuse.

i have come to realize naming names and example is not a good way to argue. leads to hyperbola's as betterer suggested.

The Wreck
02-23-2011, 03:17 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Monsanto fanboy.

The problem is they essentially have a monopoly over the industry, and they make farmers completely reliant on there products every season to sustain the yields they've gotten (because their gm-crops don't produce fertile seeds). They're becoming an extremely powerful force in all aspects of agriculture and beyond.

But as an Agricultural Economics major, I don't really have a problem with what they do or GMOs in general, as long as health risks aren't involved (and they haven't proven to be so far).

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 04:49 PM
stanton_warrior:
Because it's proven that GMO are more economic long-term, NOT.

What? LoL...with the science that we have today, we can EASILY overproduce. Why don't we? Because it makes everything cheap as crap and nobody gains a profit from that including the cost of tools, soil, pesticides, etcetera which are highly inelastic. Correct me if I'm wrong The Wreck.

Watch the movie, and then ask those questions. I currently feel a bit like talking with a blind about colors.

Wow. I actually go to the interview page to double check what the guy said about the movie is real, and I confirm it. You just say "meh, go check it yourself again." I feel like I'm trying to move a hippopotamus here. This isn't mentioning the fact that some of your other posts haven't been backed up either...

Also, just a note. Lobbyists are incumbents who work with interest groups because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have dominated heavily and so some people fear their voices will not be heard. Lobbyists are "bad" people in the eyes of James Madison but he knew special interest groups were inevitable. Not to mention that George Washington didn't approve of political parties as well because, as it turned out, they can dominate heavily.

Manus_Domini:
NJ, Wisconsin, Ohio, and a lot of other states still have budget problems. The housing crisis is still being fixed.

Fun fact: The entire Wisconsin population is about half of the population of Los Angeles, and almost equal to the population of the city I live in. Yes, the city I live in nearly matches the population of an entire state. Mainly cause we're just that awesome, but still.

It's basically like the Florida recession in 1926 that was a forerunner of the 1929 recession

Erm...you mean the housing market crash of Florida in 1926? A hurricane literally went through Florida and was only a small part of the Great Depression. The Great Depression is believed to have occurred in August and was composed of several different problems. I could easily just as say the surplus of farm goods was also a catalyst of the Great Depression.

Plus, we are acting the exact same way we were in the 1920s before the recession of 1929 started. People are spending more than they can afford, government is siding with business heavily, etc.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from (especially the spending heavily one and government siding with business one when the House is Republican and the Senate is Democratic.

Also, please stop mentioning the Great Depression in general. The world has taken several precautionary measures to make sure it doesn't happen again. The government has made sure the machines get shut down when people are selling their stocks too much so we don't get an inflationary period, and monetarily the Federal Reserve can control the interest rates of every bank and decides when to sell bonds or not to help control the money in the system.

The Wreck
02-23-2011, 05:58 PM
stanton_warrior:
What? LoL...with the science that we have today, we can EASILY overproduce. Why don't we? Because it makes everything cheap as crap and nobody gains a profit from that including the cost of tools, soil, pesticides, etcetera which are highly inelastic. Correct me if I'm wrong The Wreck.


No you're pretty much right. Take corn for example. They're paying people not to grow corn to artificially keep the price of corn up at a certain level.
That's why there's such a stink over things like GMOs because they're putting lots of smaller farms out of business. We're almost too good at this now, as counter intuitive as that sounds.

Also, I love how this topic has diverged into like 15 different things. Amusing.

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 06:03 PM
The Wreck:
Also, I love how this topic has diverged into like 15 different things. Amusing.

It's like a math equation. You have to split it up into a load of stuff in order to come back with a simple answer. Takes some time to make corrections, expand on things here and there but in the end we hopefully will get back to the topic of money being "overrated" although if we use it less, it could become "underrated."

VashTheStampede
02-23-2011, 07:52 PM
Agreed. I also used to want to be rich and famous because I thought that was the best one could do with his or her life. Now, I no longer want so much for myself and want to use my life to serve God and help others. I pretty much go by the verse below:

But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. - 1 Timothy 6:8


So yeah, I still want enough money for basic needs and survival, but not so much money to the point of greed and extravagance. I've actually heard that some lottery winners actually had their lives ruined after winning (families falling apart.)

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 08:30 PM
ok allan greenspans

zero percent interest rate and no inflation.......what gives?

GetBetterer
02-23-2011, 09:48 PM
pushing wins:
ok allan greenspans

zero percent interest rate and no inflation.......what gives?

Are you addressing me about the Federal Reserve stuff?

Scientist
02-23-2011, 10:25 PM
Agreed. I also used to want to be rich and famous because I thought that was the best one could do with his or her life. Now, I no longer want so much for myself and want to use my life to serve God and help others. I pretty much go by the verse below:

But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. - 1 Timothy 6:8


So yeah, I still want enough money for basic needs and survival, but not so much money to the point of greed and extravagance. I've actually heard that some lottery winners actually had their lives ruined after winning (families falling apart.)

That's a beautiful passage and pretty much the answer.

HookEmJeff
02-23-2011, 10:47 PM
Bringing this back to a tennis issue....Do you all realize that only about 150-160 ATP and about 100-110 WTA pros actually make a decent living out of ...or break even financially...playing the sport, right?

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/USTA%20College%20Varsity%20Analysis%20of%20College %20vs%20Pro%20FAQ.pdf



Jeff

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:08 PM
the sure way to fix the world economy is another world war. it got us out of the great depression.

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:11 PM
a new economic system?

you have scarce resources. more is better than less.

basic question - how to allocate?

you can fight for it

or

you can share it

is there another way? if not, another economic system is not possible.


how do animals allocate resources?

what bout the food chain? we are at the top because we are the strongest? isnt that capitalism? but we also cannot do without the lowest on the food chain. so , idk.

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:19 PM
pushing wins:


Are you addressing me about the Federal Reserve stuff?


do you know solow growth model?

money is not a factor in sustainable growth

PCXL-Fan
02-23-2011, 11:48 PM
the sure way to fix the world economy is another world war. it got us out of the great depression.

It might spur industry and help get out of recession but it wouldn't help at all with debt, likely only increase an economic bubble.

For example Hitler create a number of huge work programs for industrialization and rearmament, initially it created many jobs, but it was only worsened their debt towards the end of the 30s. There was no plan B, it was all out plan A empire building. He'd have to create an empire by force.

WW2 was an anomaly which left our primary economic competitors industries and empires devastated. It left us as top dog for global corporate and industrial expansion. Many of the industries created in the war were also easily transitioned into peacetime industies, but that was simply america transitioning into the modern age of industrialization, i don't think there are similar military applications or upcoming ones that could create an industry spurt even a fraction of that ww2 provided.

pushing_wins
02-23-2011, 11:58 PM
It might spur industry and help get out of recession but it wouldn't help at all with debt, likely only increase an economic bubble.

For example Hitler create a number of huge work programs for industrialization and rearmament, initially it created many jobs, but it was only worsened their debt towards the end of the 30s. There was no plan B, it was all out plan A empire building. He'd have to create an empire by force.

WW2 was an anomaly which left our primary economic competitors industries and empires devastated. It left us as top dog for global corporate and industrial expansion. Many of the industries created in the war were also easily transitioned into peacetime industies, but that was simply america transitioning into the modern age of industrialization, i don't think there are similar military applications or upcoming ones that could create an industry spurt even a fraction of that ww2 provided.

where there is crisis, there is also opportunity.


debt is not a determinant in sustainable econmomic growth.

KenC
02-24-2011, 12:08 AM
a new economic system?

you have scarce resources. more is better than less.

Actually there are very few things that are scarce, and those things that are scarce can find substitutes or aren't necessary, or can be continuously recycled. Gold is scarce, but it is everywhere and is mostly used as jewelry, which is certainly not necessary, it is a luxury. Diamonds? Same thing. There are industrial uses for gold and diamonds but the amount of gold and diamonds in jewelry is way more than that needed by industry.

Petroleum is becoming scarce. But there is an abundant supply of energy that we don't use. Geothermal energy, tidal energy, wind energy and solar energy are but a few.

Money is scarce. There is not enough money in the world to buy all the products that are currently for sale. That's an interesting point. There are more goods available than money to buy them. In fact, most if not all scarcity is driven by the fact that money is kept scarce by the monetary system.

For those who understand economics, you will understand my next point. A funny thing happened in the 1950's in America. We started producing enough to balance demand with supply. There actually was a lot of debate on whether the economic system would fail or should be changed because the economy no longer depended on production increasing, but on consumption increasing. That's when modern advertising was born to make you feel uneasy unless you continued to consume more and more. Without ever increasing consumption the economic system couldn't continue to grow and it would cause the economic system and the monetary system to fail.

The truth is, we made a mistake in the 1950's by not evolving a better economic system based on a better way of distributing resources and we are paying for it dearly today.

GetBetterer
02-24-2011, 12:28 AM
pushing_wins:
the sure way to fix the world economy is another world war. it got us out of the great depression.

In historical vocabulary...you are an antisocialist.

Plus, many wars have gotten us further into an economic ****hole. WW2 was an exception because we were already in a bad place, so it gave jobs for building weapons and the like.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 12:31 AM
pushing_wins:


In historical vocabulary...you are an antisocialist.

Plus, many wars have gotten us further into an economic ****hole. WW2 was an exception because we were already in a bad place, so it gave jobs for building weapons and the like.

much more than that. war changes our psyche

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 01:00 AM
Actually there are very few things that are scarce, and those things that are scarce can find substitutes or aren't necessary, or can be continuously recycled. Gold is scarce, but it is everywhere and is mostly used as jewelry, which is certainly not necessary, it is a luxury. Diamonds? Same thing. There are industrial uses for gold and diamonds but the amount of gold and diamonds in jewelry is way more than that needed by industry.

Petroleum is becoming scarce. But there is an abundant supply of energy that we don't use. Geothermal energy, tidal energy, wind energy and solar energy are but a few.

Money is scarce. There is not enough money in the world to buy all the products that are currently for sale. That's an interesting point. There are more goods available than money to buy them. In fact, most if not all scarcity is driven by the fact that money is kept scarce by the monetary system.

For those who understand economics, you will understand my next point. A funny thing happened in the 1950's in America. We started producing enough to balance demand with supply. There actually was a lot of debate on whether the economic system would fail or should be changed because the economy no longer depended on production increasing, but on consumption increasing. That's when modern advertising was born to make you feel uneasy unless you continued to consume more and more. Without ever increasing consumption the economic system couldn't continue to grow and it would cause the economic system and the monetary system to fail.

The truth is, we made a mistake in the 1950's by not evolving a better economic system based on a better way of distributing resources and we are paying for it dearly today.

i stated more is better than less

are you countering with concepts of diminishing utility and increased productivity?

stanton warrior
02-24-2011, 01:15 AM
What? LoL...with the science that we have today, we can EASILY overproduce. Why don't we? Because it makes everything cheap as crap and nobody gains a profit from that including the cost of tools, soil, pesticides, etcetera which are highly inelastic. Correct me if I'm wrong
Isn't corn subsidized with billions in the US? Putting even mexican farmers out of business as a result, amongst other things.

There's so much cheap corn that they feed it to cattle (who usually wouldn't ever eat it) which takes some effort to keep em healthy/alive, and use it to make HFCS for extremely cheap softdrinks and sweets.

Isn't around 50% of all produced food in the US thrown away? If that's not over producing, I don't know what is.


Wow. I actually go to the interview page to double check what the guy said about the movie is real, and I confirm it. You just say "meh, go check it yourself again." I feel like I'm trying to move a hippopotamus here. This isn't mentioning the fact that some of your other posts haven't been backed up either...

Also, just a note. Lobbyists are incumbents who work with interest groups because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have dominated heavily and so some people fear their voices will not be heard. Lobbyists are "bad" people in the eyes of James Madison but he knew special interest groups were inevitable. Not to mention that George Washington didn't approve of political parties as well because, as it turned out, they can dominate heavily.
It's obvious that you don't know the whole situation and I'm not willing to waste my time explaining it all to you, in a foreign language no less. So if you really care about the topic I suggest you watch it.
As critical as you are, it will open your eyes in some ways.

KenC
02-24-2011, 01:46 AM
the sure way to fix the world economy is another world war. it got us out of the great depression.

Here's an even better idea! Why don' we completely privatize the US government, and as many other governments as well? Think about it. We do an IPO making the US government "US Government Inc." The money raised in the IPO can pay off the federal debt. From that point on it is laissez faire economics at its best. No government to interfere with US Government Inc.'s business interests. This company will no longer have to ask for taxes because it now can charge for its services. Need a road? That will cost $1 million. Want police security? Just pay for it. And private enterprise with no government regulation will make it all competitive, right? Of course there is no government to prevent monopolies, but in laissez faire economics we don't have to worry about stuff like that.

The cool thing is, this would be the ultimate in democracy. You vote by becoming a shareholder and buying stock in US Government Inc. If you want more influence, buy more stock than anyone else.

And this way US Government Inc. doesn't have to hide behind stupid ideologies like democracy to invade other countries in order to control important resources. All it has to do now is say "It is profitable to invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other country we see as profitable to invade."

Now global domination becomes a profitable goal. By now all other governments have been incorporated and now compete in the ultimate global market competition. Whoever wins rules the world. I pledge allegiance to US Government Inc!

Any other brilliant ideas?

Well, here's another really stupid idea that has no financial future at all: why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?

stanton warrior
02-24-2011, 01:53 AM
Here's an even better idea! Why don' we completely privatize the US government, and as many other governments as well? Think about it. We do an IPO making the US government "US Government Inc." The money raised in the IPO can pay off the federal debt. From that point on it is laissez faire economics at its best. No government to interfere with US Government Inc.'s business interests. This company will no longer have to ask for taxes because it now can charge for its services. Need a road? That will cost $1 million. Want police security? Just pay for it. And private enterprise with no government regulation will make it all competitive, right? Of course there is no government to prevent monopolies, but in laissez faire economics we don't have to worry about stuff like that.

The cool thing is, this would be the ultimate in democracy. You vote by becoming a shareholder and buying stock in US Government Inc. If you want more influence, buy more stock than anyone else.

And this way US Government Inc. doesn't have to hide behind stupid ideologies like democracy to invade other countries in order to control important resources. All it has to do now is say "It is profitable to invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other country we see as profitable to invade."

Now global domination becomes a profitable goal. By now all other governments have been incorporated and now compete in the ultimate global market competition. Whoever wins rules the world. I pledge allegiance to US Government Inc!

Any other brilliant ideas?

Well, here's another really stupid idea that has no financial future at all: why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?

Well put.

Amazingly the USA are, at least in some was, already pretty close to "US Government Inc".
At this point it doesn't look like a substainable business model. The current situation reminds me a bit of the whole Enron story...

aphex
02-24-2011, 01:57 AM
Only poor people think that. Thankfully...

stanton warrior
02-24-2011, 02:04 AM
Only poor people think that. Thankfully...
What's your definition of poor?

KenC
02-24-2011, 02:07 AM
As a disclaimer I should probably state that I am an American born citizen and learned economics at Wharton and also did a Master's Degree in Sustainable Development at UPenn. I often criticize America, but it's for good reason.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 06:57 AM
As a disclaimer I should probably state that I am an American born citizen and learned economics at Wharton and also did a Master's Degree in Sustainable Development at UPenn. I often criticize America, but it's for good reason.

you are asserting that changes in money supply changes the long run growth rate of an economy.

KenC
02-24-2011, 07:13 AM
you are asserting that changes in money supply changes the long run growth rate of an economy.

Are you implying that we should abandon the space program? Or are you implying that Lady Gaga should learn how to dress?

Pushing, why do you put nonsense words in other people's mouths?

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 08:05 AM
Are you implying that we should abandon the space program? Or are you implying that Lady Gaga should learn how to dress?

Pushing, why do you put nonsense words in other people's mouths?

you can put forth an example

i cant put forth 10

the argument continues forever.

whats your point?

i dont want to read pages and pages of opinions.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 08:07 AM
Here's an even better idea! Why don' we completely privatize the US government, and as many other governments as well? Think about it. We do an IPO making the US government "US Government Inc." The money raised in the IPO can pay off the federal debt. From that point on it is laissez faire economics at its best. No government to interfere with US Government Inc.'s business interests. This company will no longer have to ask for taxes because it now can charge for its services. Need a road? That will cost $1 million. Want police security? Just pay for it. And private enterprise with no government regulation will make it all competitive, right? Of course there is no government to prevent monopolies, but in laissez faire economics we don't have to worry about stuff like that.

The cool thing is, this would be the ultimate in democracy. You vote by becoming a shareholder and buying stock in US Government Inc. If you want more influence, buy more stock than anyone else.

And this way US Government Inc. doesn't have to hide behind stupid ideologies like democracy to invade other countries in order to control important resources. All it has to do now is say "It is profitable to invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other country we see as profitable to invade."

Now global domination becomes a profitable goal. By now all other governments have been incorporated and now compete in the ultimate global market competition. Whoever wins rules the world. I pledge allegiance to US Government Inc!

Any other brilliant ideas?

Well, here's another really stupid idea that has no financial future at all: why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?

we are hunters and forageres - carl sagan

its genetic

stanton warrior
02-24-2011, 08:36 AM
we are hunters and forageres - carl sagan

its genetic

He put some real thought in his post and you reply with another one of those pointless one/two-liners?

I got a quote by a smart man for you myself:

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.

PCXL-Fan
02-24-2011, 09:04 AM
Another reason a world war wouldn't help our import/export northamerican economy is because we've globalized everything. Unrest in Libya slows their oil exports and we get hit economically because of higher gas prices since we depend partially on middleeast oil. When wars with other powers close down trading they'd cut those off both resources and demand for your exported goods to their markets. Sustained economic growth won't occur in a worldwar nowdays, not with the globalized economy.

where there is crisis, there is also opportunity.


debt is not a determinant in sustainable econmomic growth.


It is when you are dependent on foreign loans and investments and resources to sustain your current pace of your globalized import/export industries and economy. Part of americas wealth comes from their operations in many foreign markets, all sorts unknowns occur when you have an operation in a county who you refuse to pay a debt to. When you start reneging on loads owed the whole economic system starts falling apart, even your own. America brings in wealth via exporting to the global market. Whats more Americas industries are fueled by foreign resources (i'm not saying wholly). We are not completely independent and never will be.

Starting wars is frowned upon by the international community. Just look at Iraq. America became the big bully and american brand in general has taken a large hit in areas of the world far away from the middle east. I remember back in the mid 90s when i traveled to germany there was no huge disgust or dislike of american companies, this perhaps the most pro American country outside Britain, in Europe. Now days i hear stories that many american companies and brands are almost socially boycotted by many Europeans there. That has to have taken a hit on foreign sales.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 01:54 PM
He put some real thought in his post and you reply with another one of those pointless one/two-liners?

I got a quote by a smart man for you myself:

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.

omg. because you dont see the relevance, then its irrelevant.

i m a minimalist. i am not trying to be rude or smart.

i have studied those arguments in school as well. arguing on a case by case basis only leads to hyperbolas. it just repeating the same argument.

like if you asked me about tennis forehand. i will say..........slot and first move. relevant? idk. i hope to some.

Steady Eddy
02-24-2011, 01:55 PM
why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?
My father tells me that when my mom's book club gets together, the discusson usually ends with some of the women crying, "Why can't we all just love each other?" Maybe you could join their group, they meet in Minnesota. Or find another like it? Just sayin' it sounds like the kinda thing you'd like.

The Wreck
02-24-2011, 02:31 PM
Actually there are very few things that are scarce, and those things that are scarce can find substitutes or aren't necessary, or can be continuously recycled. Gold is scarce, but it is everywhere and is mostly used as jewelry, which is certainly not necessary, it is a luxury. Diamonds? Same thing. There are industrial uses for gold and diamonds but the amount of gold and diamonds in jewelry is way more than that needed by industry.

Petroleum is becoming scarce. But there is an abundant supply of energy that we don't use. Geothermal energy, tidal energy, wind energy and solar energy are but a few.

Money is scarce. There is not enough money in the world to buy all the products that are currently for sale. That's an interesting point. There are more goods available than money to buy them. In fact, most if not all scarcity is driven by the fact that money is kept scarce by the monetary system.

For those who understand economics, you will understand my next point. A funny thing happened in the 1950's in America. We started producing enough to balance demand with supply. There actually was a lot of debate on whether the economic system would fail or should be changed because the economy no longer depended on production increasing, but on consumption increasing. That's when modern advertising was born to make you feel uneasy unless you continued to consume more and more. Without ever increasing consumption the economic system couldn't continue to grow and it would cause the economic system and the monetary system to fail.

The truth is, we made a mistake in the 1950's by not evolving a better economic system based on a better way of distributing resources and we are paying for it dearly today.

EVERYTHING is scarce. That's the whole basis of economics. The only exceptions are things like air (and even that's debatable nowadays). Nothing is unlimited; that's why it has to be allocated efficiently.

What happened in the 50's was just the start of the problem, I think. In my opinion when manufacturing and industrial jobs were beginning to be sent elsewhere and we began to import everything is where we went wrong. We are almost entirely a service economy now. At the end of the day, we have almost no tangible goods to show for our work. That's no bueno...

Here's an even better idea! Why don' we completely privatize the US government, and as many other governments as well? Think about it. We do an IPO making the US government "US Government Inc." The money raised in the IPO can pay off the federal debt. From that point on it is laissez faire economics at its best. No government to interfere with US Government Inc.'s business interests. This company will no longer have to ask for taxes because it now can charge for its services. Need a road? That will cost $1 million. Want police security? Just pay for it. And private enterprise with no government regulation will make it all competitive, right? Of course there is no government to prevent monopolies, but in laissez faire economics we don't have to worry about stuff like that.

The cool thing is, this would be the ultimate in democracy. You vote by becoming a shareholder and buying stock in US Government Inc. If you want more influence, buy more stock than anyone else.

And this way US Government Inc. doesn't have to hide behind stupid ideologies like democracy to invade other countries in order to control important resources. All it has to do now is say "It is profitable to invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other country we see as profitable to invade."

Now global domination becomes a profitable goal. By now all other governments have been incorporated and now compete in the ultimate global market competition. Whoever wins rules the world. I pledge allegiance to US Government Inc!

Any other brilliant ideas?

Well, here's another really stupid idea that has no financial future at all: why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?

If you're being serious, that's a fairly terrible idea. I get what you're trying to say, but it would be disastrous.

The primary obligation of any firm is to maximize shareholder wealth. While the primary roll of government in a "democracy" is to serve the will of the people. So Government Inc would simultaneously be trying to exploit the people (to maximize profits) and provide good will to the people (to act in their best interests). Too much of a contradiction.

Not to mention, that would make Government a monopoly, with full price determining powers in the market. A million for a road? How 'bout a hundred million? With no alternatives, we'd be forced to pay them, unless competition came along. And don't tell me that wouldn't be disastrous. Two ideologically different groups vying for "control" of a country....wait a second....that sounds an awful lot like our two party system of government now...

GetBetterer
02-24-2011, 02:47 PM
stanton_warrior:
Isn't corn subsidized with billions in the US? Putting even mexican farmers out of business as a result, amongst other things.

Yay, you got that from The Wreck (except the Mexican farmers one), but where did you get the Mexican farmer information?

There's so much cheap corn that they feed it to cattle (who usually wouldn't ever eat it) which takes some effort to keep em healthy/alive, and use it to make HFCS for extremely cheap softdrinks and sweets.

Isn't around 50% of all produced food in the US thrown away? If that's not over producing, I don't know what is.

Again, where did the 50% of all produced food being thrown away come from? I need legitimate websites with statistical information. You’re just giving numbers with nothing to back up your statements.

It's obvious that you don't know the whole situation and I'm not willing to waste my time explaining it all to you, in a foreign language no less. So if you really care about the topic I suggest you watch it.
As critical as you are, it will open your eyes in some ways.

I wasted my time with you (and continue to do so with your failed trolling).

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.

Cite this one too please.

KenC:
Here's an even better idea! Why don' we completely privatize the US government, and as many other governments as well? Think about it. We do an IPO making the US government "US Government Inc." The money raised in the IPO can pay off the federal debt. From that point on it is laissez faire economics at its best. No government to interfere with US Government Inc.'s business interests. This company will no longer have to ask for taxes because it now can charge for its services. Need a road? That will cost $1 million. Want police security? Just pay for it. And private enterprise with no government regulation will make it all competitive, right? Of course there is no government to prevent monopolies, but in laissez faire economics we don't have to worry about stuff like that.

The cool thing is, this would be the ultimate in democracy. You vote by becoming a shareholder and buying stock in US Government Inc. If you want more influence, buy more stock than anyone else.

And this way US Government Inc. doesn't have to hide behind stupid ideologies like democracy to invade other countries in order to control important resources. All it has to do now is say "It is profitable to invade Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and any other country we see as profitable to invade."

Now global domination becomes a profitable goal. By now all other governments have been incorporated and now compete in the ultimate global market competition. Whoever wins rules the world. I pledge allegiance to US Government Inc!

Any other brilliant ideas?

Somebody’s going radical with anarchist ideals…


Well, here's another really stupid idea that has no financial future at all: why don't we just learn how to all get along without fighting and competing over everything?

If you want us to get along, don’t attack people with your sarcasm which is just a catharsis for your frustration.

There’s a brilliant idea (note my sarcasm, and the irony)…

pushing_wins:

the argument continues forever.
http://demo.activemath.org/ActiveMath2/LeAM_calculusPics/Hyperbola1.png?lang=en

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 03:07 PM
EVERYTHING is scarce.

he has a master degree in economics and asserts that resources are not scarce?

time is scarce. i know that for sure. nobody works for free.

a body of knowledge built on a wrong premise must also be wrong.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 03:15 PM
what is the fairest way to to allocate such resources? given that we are both producers and consumers at the same time.

everyone getting equal share to consume is not fair because some produce more than others

LuckyR
02-24-2011, 03:49 PM
what is the fairest way to to allocate such resources? given that we are both producers and consumers at the same time.

everyone getting equal share to consume is not fair because some produce more than others

Allocate? Sorry bub, this is a meritocracy, we don't get "allocated" anything except welfare and that is a pittance. The rest you have to work for, steal or get left to you by your relatives (I recommend the third one, preferably from extremely wealthy parents).

The Wreck
02-24-2011, 04:46 PM
what is the fairest way to to allocate such resources? given that we are both producers and consumers at the same time.

everyone getting equal share to consume is not fair because some produce more than others

If you could correctly answer the "fairest" way to allocate resources, you would receive the Nobel Prize for Economics and have many statues erected in your honor.

The allocation of resources is not what we're allocated, but rather how we allocate. At your job, you allocate your time into various tasks in order to satisfy the needs of your job. As a household, you allocate your money to satisfy the needs of your family.

And LuckyR, you are allocated things. Your boss allocates a salary to you, based on your inherent worth to the company. I wouldn't call that "welfare" really...

Steady Eddy
02-24-2011, 07:54 PM
Money is scarce. There is not enough money in the world to buy all the products that are currently for sale. That's an interesting point. There are more goods available than money to buy them. In fact, most if not all scarcity is driven by the fact that money is kept scarce by the monetary system.

We cannot become richer simply by printing more money. For example, a stock split simply dilutes the value of the shares, a 2-for-1 split does not make a stockholder twice as rich. People are apt to confuse having more shares with having greater wealth. The same confusion may occur with having more money. When governments simply print money to pay for spending beyond what was collected in taxes, monetary inflation is the result. Excuse me, but it seems extremely naive to assert that "there is not enough money in the world to buy all the products", because the prices are determined the the supply of money in the first place. If everyone had twice as much money, products would cost twice as much, and there'd be no net difference.

For those who understand economics, you will understand my next point. A funny thing happened in the 1950's in America. We started producing enough to balance demand with supply.
Unlike you, I don't claim to be an expert in economics. All I know about economics is from two semesters of Econ and reading of my own. From both sources I've read that economists complain about people who use the terms "supply" and "demand" as if they are specific numbers, as in "the supply of gasoline will fall short of the demand this winter." Economists mean a supply/demand curve, or schedule. So different quantities of a good are supplied for different prices, and also with demand. Equilibrium is the price at which quantity demanded equals quantity supplied. So "supply" applies to an entire spectrum of different supplies for different prices, not just a single number. Barring price ceilings or price floors imposed by a government, (think of minimum wages and rent control), the quantity supplied always equals the quantity demanded. The prices might not be to one's liking, but they do adjust in this way. To speak of demand beginning to match supply in the 50's...that's the way journalists speak of economics, not economists.

You have a right to your own opinion, of course. But you're really academically trained in economic thinking? And those skills are still current?

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 08:13 PM
If you could correctly answer the "fairest" way to allocate resources, you would receive the Nobel Prize for Economics and have many statues erected in your honor.

The allocation of resources is not what we're allocated, but rather how we allocate. At your job, you allocate your time into various tasks in order to satisfy the needs of your job. As a household, you allocate your money to satisfy the needs of your family.

And LuckyR, you are allocated things. Your boss allocates a salary to you, based on your inherent worth to the company. I wouldn't call that "welfare" really...

well, maybe allocate is not the word.

the question should be - what are the fairest rules for matching production with consumption?


this leads to other questions. who has intial ownership? does ownership mean entitlement to consumption? how is ownership transfer? what would be the fairest rules?

taxes is a system of allocation.

stanton warrior
02-24-2011, 11:23 PM
Yay, you got that from The Wreck (except the Mexican farmers one), but where did you get the Mexican farmer information?
No I got it from the movie.

About the mexican farmers:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=united+states+subsidized+corn+mexico (first result)

Again, where did the 50% of all produced food being thrown away come from? I need legitimate websites with statistical information. You’re just giving numbers with nothing to back up your statements.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=food+thrown+away+united+states (first result)

Cite this one too please.
http://www.google.com/#&q=If+the+misery+of+the+poor+be+caused+not+by+the+l aws+of+nature%2C+but+by+our+institutions%2C+great+ is+our+sin.


Welcome in the 21st century, where you can be more than a sheep, if you want to.

pushing_wins
02-24-2011, 11:44 PM
democracy acccording to gadhafi

have you guys seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZiqexz7aqQ&feature=related

he makes a good point comparing democracy to dictatorships.


democracy is nothing more than a rotation of dictatorships. rotation of dictatorships is still a dictatorship.

GetBetterer
02-25-2011, 12:03 AM
stanton_warrior:
No I got it from the movie.

About the mexican farmers:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=united+states+s...ed+corn+mexico (first result)

That's a government thing, not capitalist. -_-

Let's also not forget that you were going all anti-Capitalist on me a few pages ago, and said the movie was an example. Kept speaking about it too until I quoted that the director of the movie said it was a form of socialism that he didn't agree with. LoL

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=food+thrown+away+united+states (first result)

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm

Funny...says 14.1%, not 50% as you stated. Weird.

http://www.google.com/#&q=If+the+mis...at+is+our+sin.

So essentially any system of a country with poor people is bad and poverty is only okay if it occurs naturally. Well guess what...you're living in a system too.

KenC
02-25-2011, 12:22 AM
OK, I was going to answer some of the more serious questions, but I don't really see the usefulness. It is apparent that many here are from the younger generation so I'll leave you with this:

It's your future, do what you want with it. Just be aware that most of my generation is trying to get what we can now at your future expense. You can argue over economic theory or you can go out into the world and fight for your rights, while you still have them.

stanton warrior
02-25-2011, 12:24 AM
stanton_warrior:


That's a government thing, not capitalist. -_-

Let's also not forget that you were going all anti-Capitalist on me a few pages ago, and said the movie was an example. Kept speaking about it too until I quoted that the director of the movie said it was a form of socialism that he didn't agree with. LoL



http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm

Funny...says 14.1%, not 50% as you stated. Weird.



So essentially any system of a country with poor people is bad and poverty is only okay if it occurs naturally. Well guess what...you're living in a system too.

Talking to you is like trying to hit a winner against the wall.

I mean the article has big freaking headline that is called "Half of US food goes to waste" and you replying 'but only 14%...'.
It's about the percentage of produced foods (you remember what we were talking about??), not what people throw away at home (which is still way too much).

stanton warrior
02-25-2011, 12:30 AM
OK, I was going to answer some of the more serious questions, but I don't really see the usefulness. It is apparent that many here are from the younger generation so I'll leave you with this:

It's your future, do what you want with it. Just be aware that most of my generation is trying to get what we can now at your future expense. You can argue over economic theory or you can go out into the world and fight for your rights, while you still have them.

It's depressing, really. The big part of my generation doesn't seem to give a ****, doesn't bode well for the future.

KenC
02-25-2011, 12:53 AM
It's depressing, really. The big part of my generation doesn't seem to give a ****, doesn't bode well for the future.

It is depressing. Some of my generation have children that we love and want a better future for them than what is coming. Unfortunately the most resistance to those who want to help make a better future comes from those who will inherit the future.

stanton warrior
02-25-2011, 01:14 AM
It is depressing. Some of my generation have children that we love and want a better future for them than what is coming. Unfortunately the most resistance to those who want to help make a better future comes from those who will inherit the future.

I can imagine.
I think we are at a point, or close to, where it's irresponsible to bring a child into the world.

I know it's a form of running away and not an option for many, but sometimes I think the best thing could be to find a nice, godforsaken place that is so far away from all economic centers and valuable ressources that you can sit out the approaching mess.

KenC
02-25-2011, 01:56 AM
I can imagine.
I think we are at a point, or close to, where it's irresponsible to bring a child into the world.

Luckily I had my daughter at the end of the 90's after a rather long economic boom that made me financially independent. If I was faced with that choice today I would not even consider having a child. Today I must spend my early "retirement" not enjoying my financial independence but by working to make a better future for my daughter. Although there is a lot of resistance from both the older and the younger generations, she is worth it.

stanton warrior
02-25-2011, 02:11 AM
Luckily I had my daughter at the end of the 90's after a rather long economic boom that made me financially independent. If I was faced with that choice today I would not even consider having a child. Today I must spend my early "retirement" not enjoying my financial independence but by working to make a better future for my daughter. Although there is a lot of resistance from both the older and the younger generations, she is worth it.
It's good to hear a story like that.
Sadly, many won't be as fortuante as your daughter and there seems nothing we can do about it.

How old are you, if I may ask?

KenC
02-25-2011, 02:57 AM
@ stanton

46.

stanton warrior
02-25-2011, 03:25 AM
@ stanton

46.

I see.

It's almost scary to think what the world looks like when I'm 46 in 2031.

Sentinel
02-25-2011, 03:43 AM
I;ve only read the first post. ...


Being happy is more important than looking happy. Doing what makes me happy is more important than doing what makes me look happy. ....

Finding out what makes me happy is more important than finding out what makes me look happy/cool/"in" etc.
:D

my 2 cents.

every darned thing in the world is overrated. everything. except love -- I mean the love where you want nothing of the other person, where giving and helping and loving is all that matters.

KenC
02-25-2011, 04:16 AM
It's almost scary to think what the world looks like when I'm 46 in 2031.

To imagine the future in 20 years from now, it sometimes helps to think about what you thought in 1991 the future would look like in 2011. A lot fell apart in those 20 years, huh? Today we all have serious doubts that the world will get better. Look at the global financial instability, a changing geopolital landscape, massive investments in military capacities around the world. Now think about 2031. Pretty sobering, huh?

And we seem more interested in Lady Gaga's latest outfit than the future.

Like I said, the party's winding down. The bill for the party will then be due with interest. Are we ready for that? And for the special interest of the younger generation, who do you think will have to pay the bulk of that bill and interest? Just go on partying like its 1999...

GetBetterer
02-25-2011, 04:13 PM
Sorry to interrupt on your lovefest here stanton_warrior and KenC,
stanton_warrior:
Talking to you is like trying to hit a winner against the wall.

I mean the article has big freaking headline that is called "Half of US food goes to waste" and you replying 'but only 14%...'.
It's about the percentage of produced foods (you remember what we were talking about??), not what people throw away at home (which is still way too much).

No, talking to me is like talking to someone who uses your own mind against you.

I knew it was 50% (the research was done at the University of Arizona, I live in Arizona, durr).

Secondly, the article's title isn't "Half of the US food goes to waste..." it's: Basic Information about Food Waste.

Also, now that I'm re-reading some of your posts again, all I'm reading is herp derp durr. Seriously.

Did you notice the first result of Google leads to the EPA website? Did you notice that the 14.1% mentioned in the EPA website and that I stated is not actually
stanton_warrior:
about the percentage of produced foods ... not what people throw away at home.

Also, you're still wrong because the 50% food thrown away is actually
food ready for harvest as per http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/US-wastes-half-its-food.

In addition, did you even notice that the 14.1% of the EPA.gov website that I linked is actually 14.1% of all waste in the US not just food trash/scraps? Yet you still attempted to debate about it with
It's about the percentage of produced foods ... not what people throw away at home.
http://boldt.us/var/albums/humor/ROFL_MAO.jpg?m=1283736465

Now I know I'm attempting to debate with someone who's mental competency doesn't allow him/her to vote.

salsainglesa
02-26-2011, 03:08 AM
every darned thing in the world is overrated. everything. except love -- I mean the love where you want nothing of the other person, where giving and helping and loving is all that matters.

I hear you... I haven't checked the thread in a while... but I liked what you say and agree and you were cristal clear.

Nice.

KenC
02-26-2011, 04:05 AM
Maybe we need to redefine what we call poor, well-off and rich? My personal definition of poverty is when someone has to be preoccupied with money because they feel a need to accumulate things. People that are hungry are poor and have a right to be preoccupied with money and accumulating food. But also people who still have a need to accumulate stuff because stuff defines them or makes them temporarily happy. I personally would call that a form of poverty as well.

When a person no longer has to think about money and buying things and starts to enjoy what they have then maybe they are well off? Of course, not having to worry about food and survival would make a person well-off. Maybe when they stop getting their satisfaction from "appearing better" than someone else and competing with everyone for everything and start to appreciate being in supportive relationships they become really well-off?

So what would be rich? I would consider a person rich if they go beyond being in and enjoying their supportive relationships and start helping the poor to become well-off.

In that way of looking at things, I would encourage everyone to get as rich as they can.

GetBetterer
02-26-2011, 11:14 AM
KenC:
Maybe we need to redefine what we call poor, well-off and rich? My personal definition of poverty is when someone has to be preoccupied with money because they feel a need to accumulate things. People that are hungry are poor and have a right to be preoccupied with money and accumulating food. But also people who still have a need to accumulate stuff because stuff defines them or makes them temporarily happy. I personally would call that a form of poverty as well.

When a person no longer has to think about money and buying things and starts to enjoy what they have then maybe they are well off? Of course, not having to worry about food and survival would make a person well-off. Maybe when they stop getting their satisfaction from "appearing better" than someone else and competing with everyone for everything and start to appreciate being in supportive relationships they become really well-off?

So what would be rich? I would consider a person rich if they go beyond being in and enjoying their supportive relationships and start helping the poor to become well-off.

In that way of looking at things, I would encourage everyone to get as rich as they can.

That's kind of what's going on. Several rich people (Gates, Trump, and some Tennis players) have bought everything they need and so donate (Federer created his own foundation for donations).

Also, in case you're trying to be passive-aggressive I never said I was rich monetarily speaking, nor do I feel the need to buy things to temporarily make me happy...
3X Babolat Pure Storm LTD GT, MultiFeel 17g strings @ 23Kg

Rui
02-26-2011, 11:55 AM
A wiser man than I (not hard to be), once told me about women: "they all want security."

Money constitutes a large percentage of that security.

pushing_wins
02-26-2011, 12:55 PM
KenC:


That's kind of what's going on. Several rich people (Gates, Trump, and some Tennis players) have bought everything they need and so donate (Federer created his own foundation for donations).

Also, in case you're trying to be passive-aggressive I never said I was rich monetarily speaking, nor do I feel the need to buy things to temporarily make me happy...

getting anywhere with this debate?

please keep me posted.

GetBetterer
02-26-2011, 04:35 PM
pushing_wins:
please keep me posted.

Well stanton fell for my red herring and brought himself down so that's one out of the park.

Mick
02-26-2011, 04:44 PM
deleted -- wrong thread.

ramseszerg
02-26-2011, 05:45 PM
If the rich get richer, does it necessarily follow that the poor get poorer? It sounds like it should follow, but that's only if we assume that the economy is a zero-sum game. Another view is, that a rising tide, raises all boats.

Empirically, we know that two of the poorest nations, with some of the largest populations, China and India, have grown their economies enormously over the last 30 years. Many people there are still very poor, but in a relative way, they have improved economically. How did this happen if the poor only get more poor?

Domestically, things have changed alot in the U.S. As of 1970, only 10% of Americans had ever been on a plane. In the 60's, one car families thought they were affluent and central air conditioning was very rare. Now, even poor families spend $150 a month on media: cell phones, cable TV, etc. Those are services that didn't even exist 40 years ago. Nowadays, a family considered poor might have two cars, cable TV, air-conditioning and cell phones. Maybe you're right to feel that they should have more, but it's wrong to say that they have less than they did earlier.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well. I think much of the world still lives in abject poverty because of corrupt dictators who keep their economy in ruins.

That was so dumb my brain hurts..

Steady Eddy
02-26-2011, 06:15 PM
That was so dumb my brain hurts..
Just a sweeping judgement with nothing to support it. You can't refute it so you just say it's "dumb".

Mick
02-26-2011, 06:26 PM
it makes sense that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because money generates more money and debts also generate bigger debts (if you don't pay them off).

ramseszerg
02-26-2011, 06:30 PM
If the rich get richer, does it necessarily follow that the poor get poorer? "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not a theoretical statement to be proven or disproven. It sounds like it should follow, but that's only if we assume that the economy is a zero-sum game. Another view is, that a rising tide, raises all boats.

Empirically, we know that two of the poorest nations, with some of the largest populations, China and India, have grown their economies enormously over the last 30 years. Many people there are still very poor, but in a relative way, they have improved economically. How did this happen if the poor only get more poor? yeah. lol. the first thing I said.

Domestically, things have changed alot in the U.S. As of 1970, only 10% of Americans had ever been on a plane. In the 60's, one car families thought they were affluent and central air conditioning was very rare. Now, even poor families spend $150 a month on media: cell phones, cable TV, etc. Those are services that didn't even exist 40 years ago. Nowadays, a family considered poor might have two cars, cable TV, air-conditioning and cell phones. Maybe you're right to feel that they should have more, but it's wrong to say that they have less than they did earlier. O rly? Because a family considered poor that I know has teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol problems, domestic abuse problems, crime, is in a vicious cycle.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well. I think much of the world still lives in abject poverty because of corrupt dictators who keep their economy in ruins. O rly? hahahaha you're right, I don't even know how to refute this.

It's not that I necessarily disagree with you. I never said that. I said it was dumb.

Steady Eddy
02-26-2011, 06:34 PM
It's not that I necessarily disagree with you. I never said that. I said it was dumb.
You don't say why. This happens alot on internet forums. It's difficult to support your own views, when one runs into contrary views one just says that the poster is: "dumb", "a fail", and so on.

ramseszerg
02-26-2011, 06:39 PM
You don't say why. This happens alot on internet forums. It's difficult to support your own views, when one runs into contrary views one just says that the poster is: "dumb", "a fail", and so on.

It's easier to debate something that is logical than what you have posted. I have tried my best above anyhow.

Steady Eddy
02-26-2011, 06:59 PM
It's easier to debate something that is logical than what you have posted. I have tried my best above anyhow.I'll try to be more clear then.

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not a theoretical statement to be proven or disproven.

Why would someone claim it then, if it doesn't matter? Someone can't prove this like a math theorem, but you can create a preponderance of evidence. Ways to measure poverty are: life expectancy, infant mortality, and calories consumed per day. If all of these improve, that's a pretty compelling case that poverty is decreasing, just as the opposite can create a strong case for poverty getting worse.

How did this happen if the poor only get more poor? yeah. lol. the first thing I said.
Here I'm using the examples of India and China, the two most populated countries in the world, and poverty in them has decreased very much in the last 20 years as they have become more capitalistic. That supports my view, that even though poverty is far from solved, things are getting better, and capitalism helps it get better, it doesn't make it worse.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well. I think much of the world still lives in abject poverty because of corrupt dictators who keep their economy in ruins. O rly? hahahaha you're right, I don't even know how to refute this. For example, the dictators that are in trouble now in the mid-east don't allow much capitalism in their countries. They want the government to control the economy. For example Chavez is the dictator of Venezuela so that he can install socialism to help the poor. These dictators claim they want to help the poor, but instead they line their pockets. So I think that poor people are better off under capitalism, (even though it's not perfect, nothing is.)

O rly? Because a family considered poor that I know has teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol problems, domestic abuse problems, crime, is in a vicious cycle.
That's too bad, but is that the fault of capitalism or the government? Would they be better off under a different form of government or in a different country, and why?

Sincerely, your dummy :)

GetBetterer
02-26-2011, 07:23 PM
Dying thread has been revived... :(

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by Steady Eddy
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not a theoretical statement to be proven or disproven.

what do you mean by proven?

how roger hits his forehand. it cannot be prove or disproven. there are so many things that cannot be proven or disproven. we should not discuss them?

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 12:41 AM
pushing_wins:


Well stanton fell for my red herring and brought himself down so that's one out of the park.

stupid statements are tolerated, but posters who contradict themselves are banned from further postings.

also, calling someone a dummy needs to be backed-up

are those the rules around here?

KenC
02-27-2011, 12:47 AM
[B]Capitalism isn't perfect, but it seems to work very well... That's too bad, but is that the fault of capitalism or the government? Would they be better off under a different form of government or in a different country, and why?


In a hundred or so years, when historians then discuss the pros and cons of capitalism, I feel confident they will say exactly what you said. Capitalism wasn't perfect, but it did seem to get a lot of people out of a period of scarce resources and into a period of abundance. A period of abundance can be considered a period where poor families have two cars and can spend €150 on entertainment. China and India would consider themselves rich if they had America's or Europe's poverty.

One of the real problems that holds capitalism back from benefiting more of society instead of the rich is it's strong ties to a corrupt monetary system. I fear a lot of people don't really understand the now almost global monetary system. Here's a refresher for those who don't:

First of all, the Federal Reserve Bank is as federal as CitiBank is. It is essentially a cartel of private banks given the power by the US Govt. to regulate money supply. How is money supply regulated? First, all new money comes into existence as new debt. Because of very loose fractional reserve requirements, banks can just create money essentially out of nothing just by issuing more debt. Banks make a lot of money on the interest of that debt. The problem is when they create that debt they do not create the money to pay the interest on that debt. The money to pay that interest then has to come out of the existing money supply. So, the existing money supply, which is really just outstanding debt, has to constantly increase in order to cover the interest on debt. In effect, the world has to go deeper into debt because of this interest. It is a vicious cycle. The Federal Reserve regulates, and perpetuates, this vicious cycle by adjusting the interest rate. But, this interest rate is adjusted not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of creating as much interest as possible, in other words, maximum profit for the banks.

Where does capitalism come in? Well, that vicious cycle is balanced by increasing economic output. As long as the economy is growing it makes people and corporations confident enough to take on more debt and the whole system just chugs along, even though the debt, and its associated interest, keeps silently increasing. Capitalism is the best, if not only, system to keep the economy chugging along because of its profit motive and capacity to encourage the pursuit of individual wealth. This way everyone wins, especially those who are collecting interest on the ever-expanding debt.

This pressure to keep the economy growing at all costs is what caused the economy, and by consequence, the government to divorce itself from the needs of society. Why? Because the moment the economy goes into recession, all hell breaks loose. I think we just saw that in 2008. Ironically, this recession was caused by the banking system and the remedy was for the government to give taxpayer money to the banks to get them out of trouble.

Now think for a moment how capitalism would function if the pressure to produce beyond abundance was removed? This is why there is a big call for Monetary Reform today. We cannot stop the system anymore.

A big take home message is this: governments, economic systems and monetary systems are just instruments for society to use for the benefit and well-being of society. Unfortunately, grave mistakes were made in the past that took this power away from society and now society is just an instrument for governments, economic systems and monetary systems.

If you don't believe me, please go here to the US DEBT CLOCK (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) and learn what your financial obligation is to continue the system. Each American taxpayer today owes almost $130,000 in taxes to support this system, and that debt is now skyrocketing at a rate that is more than scary. Meanwhile, that is their share of public debt. Note that the private debt is much larger and has to be paid off as well, with interest.

Whoever said that the meek will inherit the earth obviously didn't know any bankers.

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 12:57 AM
OK, I was going to answer some of the more serious questions, but I don't really see the usefulness. It is apparent that many here are from the younger generation so I'll leave you with this:

It's your future, do what you want with it. Just be aware that most of my generation is trying to get what we can now at your future expense. You can argue over economic theory or you can go out into the world and fight for your rights, while you still have them.




In a hundred or so years, when historians then discuss the pros and cons of capitalism, I feel confident they will say exactly what you said. Capitalism wasn't perfect, but it did seem to get a lot of people out of a period of scarce resources and into a period of abundance. A period of abundance can be considered a period where poor families have two cars and can spend €150 on entertainment. China and India would consider themselves rich if they had America's or Europe's poverty.

One of the real problems that holds capitalism back from benefiting more of society instead of the rich is it's strong ties to a corrupt monetary system. I fear a lot of people don't really understand the now almost global monetary system. Here's a refresher for those who don't:

First of all, the Federal Reserve Bank is as federal as CitiBank is. It is essentially a cartel of private banks given the power by the US Govt. to regulate money supply. How is money supply regulated? First, all new money comes into existence as new debt. Because of very loose fractional reserve requirements, banks can just create money essentially out of nothing just by issuing more debt. Banks make a lot of money on the interest of that debt. The problem is when they create that debt they do not create the money to pay the interest on that debt. The money to pay that interest then has to come out of the existing money supply. So, the existing money supply, which is really just outstanding debt, has to constantly increase in order to cover the interest on debt. In effect, the world has to go deeper into debt because of this interest. It is a vicious cycle. The Federal Reserve regulates, and perpetuates, this vicious cycle by adjusting the interest rate. But, this interest rate is adjusted not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of creating as much interest as possible, in other words, maximum profit for the banks.

Where does capitalism come in? Well, that vicious cycle is balanced by increasing economic output. As long as the economy is growing it makes people and corporations confident enough to take on more debt and the whole system just chugs along, even though the debt, and its associated interest, keeps silently increasing. Capitalism is the best, if not only, system to keep the economy chugging along because of its profit motive and capacity to encourage the pursuit of individual wealth. This way everyone wins, especially those who are collecting interest on the ever-expanding debt.

This pressure to keep the economy growing at all costs is what caused the economy, and by consequence, the government to divorce itself from the needs of society. Why? Because the moment the economy goes into recession, all hell breaks loose. I think we just saw that in 2008. Ironically, this recession was caused by the banking system and the remedy was for the government to give taxpayer money to the banks to get them out of trouble.

Now think for a moment how capitalism would function if the pressure to produce beyond abundance was removed? This is why there is a big call for Monetary Reform today. We cannot stop the system anymore.

A big take home message is this: governments, economic systems and monetary systems are just instruments for society to use for the benefit and well-being of society. Unfortunately, grave mistakes were made in the past that took this power away from society and now society is just an instrument for governments, economic systems and monetary systems.

If you don't believe me, please go here to the US DEBT CLOCK (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) and learn what your financial obligation is to continue the system. Each American taxpayer today owes almost $130,000 in taxes to support this system, and that debt is now skyrocketing at a rate that is more than scary. Meanwhile, that is their share of public debt. Note that the private debt is much larger and has to be paid off as well, with interest.

Whoever said that the meek will inherit the earth obviously didn't know any bankers.


you said you were done with this thread

and now this!

ramseszerg
02-27-2011, 02:05 AM
what do you mean by proven?

how roger hits his forehand. it cannot be prove or disproven. there are so many things that cannot be proven or disproven. we should not discuss them?

We can discuss them, but in this case it would be better to discuss the statement in light of the original meaning of the statement. That is, money makes more money, etc. Not "India, China, blah blah and thus the statement must be false"

KenC
02-27-2011, 04:54 AM
Now we have juvenile trolls trolling juvenile trolls. And these trolls contribute nothing except try to tell people who are capable of critical thought how stupid they are.

I sometimes wonder why the sustainable development crowd continues to work to save the world for the next generation. Maybe it's time to say screw'em and take their future share for our own.



Edit: OK, I found it! Here's a little tidbit I found in a Sus Dev forum awhile ago that I saved:

An Open Letter to Our Children

You are an absolute utter disappointment. You are worthless. Instead of finding ways to insert yourselves productively in society you choose to spend your days watching MTV, Facebooking, skateboarding, vandalizing public property and leeching off of us. Instead of giving us satisfaction, you have been nothing but a financial drain. We don't love you. We would have been much better off if you weren't born.

We no longer want to have you in our society or even employ you to do services for us. We find it more economical to pay foreigners much less money to produce much better results. We are trying our best to use technology to replace you with automated cashiers, bank tellers, automated food vendors, robots and the like. They are more profitable, work better and don't complain as much.

All you do is talk about how intelligent you are, but you never do anything worthwhile. You makes things worse, not better. Intelligence is seen in results, not talk.

You are on your own. We no longer need you.

Signed, Your Parents. Like, oh my God, you know, those with all the money and power over you.

Pretty funny huh? I am willing to bet a parent of one of these forum trolls actually wrote that!

Steady Eddy
02-27-2011, 07:07 AM
In a hundred or so years, when historians then discuss the pros and cons of capitalism, I feel confident they will say exactly what you said. Capitalism wasn't perfect, but it did seem to get a lot of people out of a period of scarce resources and into a period of abundance. A period of abundance can be considered a period where poor families have two cars and can spend €150 on entertainment. China and India would consider themselves rich if they had America's or Europe's poverty.

If this means that capitalism isn't forever, I agree. Capitalism seems to assume that people would always trade leisure, and the environment for more money; that's essentially a poor person's perspective. Some day if the planet has solved its economic problems, I think people would want a system that meets a variety of needs, not just monetary ones.

KenC
02-27-2011, 08:23 AM
If this means that capitalism isn't forever, I agree. Capitalism seems to assume that people would always trade leisure, and the environment for more money; that's essentially a poor person's perspective. Some day if the planet has solved its economic problems, I think people would want a system that meets a variety of needs, not just monetary ones.

Sounds like something the upcoming generation should think about. In what condition does the younger generations want to inherit the earth? I think it's obvious the current older generations, better known as the ruling generations, really don't want anything to change because they have a vested interest in the system. Their livelihood today depends on it. Their retirement depends on it. Don't expect them to care to much about your futures when their future isn't certain anymore.

Unfortunately the older generation has been very good at socially conditioning the younger generation to not be effective in bringing about change. The younger generation fell hook, line and sinker for extreme individualism combined with extreme consumerism and a love for the systems the older generations now depend on.

If the younger generation really does want a system that meets a variety of needs, not just monetary ones, it will be up to that younger generation. If they are too self-occupied and expect someone else to do it for them, it won't happen. It's like asking criminals to fix crime.

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 10:38 AM
Now we have juvenile trolls trolling juvenile trolls. And these trolls contribute nothing except try to tell people who are capable of critical thought how stupid they are.

ad hominen is a logical fallacy

so typical of a person who has a subscription to the economist

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 11:04 AM
We can discuss them, but in this case it would be better to discuss the statement in light of the original meaning of the statement. That is, money makes more money, etc. Not "India, China, blah blah and thus the statement must be false"

greater income inequality does not necesary follow from money makes more money. other factors comes into play. it is not completely deducible from money makes more money.

so inductive reasoning is needed. bringing in "china, india" blah blah allows us to make an educated guess about our hypothesis. eddy's arguments may or may not be the truth but the arguments is almost always valid.

zero sum economy and income inequality is much discussed topics in economics

pushing_wins
02-27-2011, 11:46 AM
If this means that capitalism isn't forever, I agree. Capitalism seems to assume that people would always trade leisure, and the environment for more money; that's essentially a poor person's perspective. Some day if the planet has solved its economic problems, I think people would want a system that meets a variety of needs, not just monetary ones.


going off on a tangent here.

with the advent of computers and other productivity gains, we should be able to achieve the same output level with a shorter work week.

why havent we? people choose to do their work slower than ever b4.

GetBetterer
02-27-2011, 11:48 AM
pushing_wins:
stupid statements are tolerated, but posters who contradict themselves are banned from further postings.

Well, he's still active.

KenC:
First of all, the Federal Reserve Bank is as federal as CitiBank is. It is essentially a cartel of private banks given the power by the US Govt. to regulate money supply. How is money supply regulated? First, all new money comes into existence as new debt. Because of very loose fractional reserve requirements, banks can just create money essentially out of nothing just by issuing more debt. Banks make a lot of money on the interest of that debt. The problem is when they create that debt they do not create the money to pay the interest on that debt. The money to pay that interest then has to come out of the existing money supply. So, the existing money supply, which is really just outstanding debt, has to constantly increase in order to cover the interest on debt. In effect, the world has to go deeper into debt because of this interest. It is a vicious cycle. The Federal Reserve regulates, and perpetuates, this vicious cycle by adjusting the interest rate. But, this interest rate is adjusted not for the benefit of society but for the benefit of creating as much interest as possible, in other words, maximum profit for the banks.

No. It's a central banking system, it's not an actual bank you can go to and be all like "Hi, I would like to open a checking account." Nor is it even a cartel of private banks, because it's not an oligopoly (the first requirement of being a cartel) and they're not co-operating with each other for the purpose of making everything more expensive. It's not working with the government at all. The chairmen are appointed by the President and accepted or denied by Senate (which means they need to bribe 26 people). Not to forget that the Senate is 99% of the time, the opposing political party of the President and that the members are re-elected every 4 years but the Governors are in there for 14 years.

Also, the reserve requirement is raised or lowered depending on the Federal Reserve and their Board of Directors. They’re owners of the some of the bigger banks and they’re not going to do something that bizarre because that would affect and destroy their banks as well. For example, if they raised the reserve requirement, that’s the amount that their banks must follow too.

The Fed is really strict on their borrowing policy because the Fed is made up of bankers, they know the worst that can happen. They other banks usually sell it to the U.S. Treasury for more money anyways if they do borrow, so they can easily get out of debt. They’re also not going to borrow at times of very low interest (long-term wise) because they know they will lose money that way. Not to mention that the banks are currently borrow less (if at all) from the Fed and instead borrow from the capital market, and then sell it to the U.S. Treasury.

Where does capitalism come in? Well, that vicious cycle is balanced by increasing economic output. As long as the economy is growing it makes people and corporations confident enough to take on more debt and the whole system just chugs along, even though the debt, and its associated interest, keeps silently increasing. Capitalism is the best, if not only, system to keep the economy chugging along because of its profit motive and capacity to encourage the pursuit of individual wealth. This way everyone wins, especially those who are collecting interest on the ever-expanding debt.

This pressure to keep the economy growing at all costs is what caused the economy, and by consequence, the government to divorce itself from the needs of society. Why? Because the moment the economy goes into recession, all hell breaks loose. I think we just saw that in 2008. Ironically, this recession was caused by the banking system and the remedy was for the government to give taxpayer money to the banks to get them out of trouble.

Capitalism makes banks more confident to borrow. When a recession hits and the money they borrowed has to be paid back in a larger amount (hence, they lose money) then that’s when the recession gets worse. However, not all banks follow this risky business because they know it can cause them to fail and most banks only borrow heavily when a recession ends thus moving money throughout the United States in general generating heavy debt. Luckily most banks pull out of this situation due to the long term U.S. Treasury trade I spoke about above, and because the Fed uses contractionary monetary policy in times of recessions and they know how to pull themselves out. It is the Fed that supports the banks, not the government. The only government thing to support the banks from the government is FDIC and that’s to work as a safety net for any banks that may fail and to guarantee the safety of deposits from the People when giving money to the banks. Now you can’t tell me that’s the government divorcing itself from the needs of society. Taxpayer money goes to FDIC, banks are not part of the government. The only person who wanted a national bank was Alexander Hamilton and even though he got one and it was again rebuilt it was permanently shut down. The Fed is not a bank.

Also, the recession began in 2007 not 2008. That’s like saying the Great Depression began on October 29th or 28th 1929.

Now think for a moment how capitalism would function if the pressure to produce beyond abundance was removed? This is why there is a big call for Monetary Reform today. We cannot stop the system anymore.

As previously questioned and stated. Why would we want to produce beyond abundance? That would make everything cheap and the product suppliers would say no immediately. Capitalism would still be existent because we would be interdependent on other countries (as Capitalism has it) if we were to stop producing. It’s when the country becomes too interdependent that the country itself (not Capitalism) is showing signs of degradation.

If you don't believe me, please go here to the US DEBT CLOCK and learn what your financial obligation is to continue the system. Each American taxpayer today owes almost $130,000 in taxes to support this system, and that debt is now skyrocketing at a rate that is more than scary. Meanwhile, that is their share of public debt. Note that the private debt is much larger and has to be paid off as well, with interest.

You do know that the GDP of the U.S. is 61% of the debt right (calculated from ’08 to ’09 in one of the worst situations of the recession), which compared to other countries places us as #27 out of 125. The socialistic countries are near the bottom, and there are no mercantilist countries for a reason.

We no longer want to have you in our society or even employ you to do services for us. We find it more economical to pay foreigners much less money to produce much better results. We are trying our best to use technology to replace you with automated cashiers, bank tellers, automated food vendors, robots and the like. They are more profitable, work better and don't complain as much.

You do know that most people are graduating from college (U.S. having one of the highest rates of graduation) so even with facebooking and listening to great singers like Lady Gaga, we still get a lot of the economy out of younger workers. Not to mention that getting foreigners to do our jobs makes a majority of taxpayers even worse. I believe South Park had an example of this where people from the future came and took people’s jobs, symbolic of India and their high education with a willingness to work for less money than an American with the same job.

Sounds like something the upcoming generation should think about. In what condition does the younger generations want to inherit the earth? I think it's obvious the current older generations, better known as the ruling generations, really don't want anything to change because they have a vested interest in the system. Their livelihood today depends on it. Their retirement depends on it. Don't expect them to care to much about your futures when their future isn't certain anymore.

Unfortunately the older generation has been very good at socially conditioning the younger generation to not be effective in bringing about change. The younger generation fell hook, line and sinker for extreme individualism combined with extreme consumerism and a love for the systems the older generations now depend on.

If the younger generation really does want a system that meets a variety of needs, not just monetary ones, it will be up to that younger generation. If they are too self-occupied and expect someone else to do it for them, it won't happen. It's like asking criminals to fix crime.

This is what KenC looks like:
http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/img/george_bernard_shaw.jpeg

Caption: I don’t always hate, but when I do, it’s on the young people.

KenC
02-27-2011, 10:53 PM
going off on a tangent here.

with the advent of computers and other productivity gains, we should be able to achieve the same output level with a shorter work week.

why havent we? people choose to do their work slower than ever b4.

pushing_wins:


Well, he's still active.

As previously questioned and stated. Why would we want to produce beyond abundance? That would make everything cheap and the product suppliers would say no immediately. Capitalism would still be existent because we would be interdependent on other countries (as Capitalism has it) if we were to stop producing. It’s when the country becomes too interdependent that the country itself (not Capitalism) is showing signs of degradation.


You do know that the GDP of the U.S. is 61% of the debt right (calculated from ’08 to ’09 in one of the worst situations of the recession), which compared to other countries places us as #27 out of 125. The socialistic countries are near the bottom, and there are no mercantilist countries for a reason.

It appears you both are just here to argue and argue to win, but not by actually presenting any arguments based on your own critical thinking. One just makes up stuff like we all chose to be lazier at work instead of choose to work less hours, or we should just go to war to solve our economic problems. Yeah... The other seems quite capable of regurgitating what he was taught in econ 101 at some community college but never seems to ask if that theory is really behind what is happening in the world today. Are you both trying to bring me down to your level and beat me with stupidity?

The last best estimate of GDP in 2010 is 14.861 Trillion USD. (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm) And 2010 was a better year for GDP. Public Debt was 14.025 Trillion USD. By my calculator the debt to GDP ratio is over 94%. And it is forcasted to rise to 19.6 Trillion USD (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/08/usa-treasury-debt-idUSN088462520100608) by 2015 according to a US Treasury report.

More importantly that a stupid economic indicator, who has to pay that escalating public debt? The government? No, you do through taxes. And your tax rate will have to go up sooner or later. Secondly, why do people place so much value on the Debt/GDP ratio? Does it measure the well-being of anything other than the economy? Is the economy the end to the means? Apparently so.

Why would we want to produce beyond abundance? Do you really think we are not producing enough goods to satisfy demand? Are all factories producing around the clock? Next time you go into a supermarket ask yourself is there a shortage of food. Next time you go to the mall, look around at all the scarcity. We are producing beyond abundance and we drive it by manipulating consumers through agressive advertising to over consume. Why? We need even more consumption to drive the economy close to its tilt point so that we can finance the ever increasing public debt that is getting close to its tilt point.

Lastly, you love this word interdependent, and you use it like cooperation instead of competition. While it may seem the US economy and the Chinese economy are interdependent today, do you really think it is equitable interdependency? Ask Warren Buffet what he thinks. Remember Squanderville Vs. Thriftville? Or is he an idiot too? Interestingly, since he wrote that he started investing heavily in China. As did most of the US rich. They at least know how to make money off the decline of the US. Now, in the end of this glorious interdependency, what are you to gain? The chinese get all the jobs and the investment and you get cheaper iJunk. Whoever sold you the idea of interdependency is obviously heavily invested in China and is looking to make a killing off your gullibleness.

Anyway, I can understand that for a governing body that is facing very tough times, the last thing they need is critical thinkers going beyond the propaganda to get to the real truth. You have been socially conditioned to behave as you are now. You can argue with me, against your own best interest, to appear cool on a tennis forum, but when all this mess that you believe is just fine starts to bite you in the rear, remember it was you who fell for it hook, line and sinker and you only have yourselves to blame. Won't feel so intelligent then, will you?

For the time being, I hope this ongoing argument at least encourages others to think critically and not blindly accept the tons of propaganda out there. You can choose to be cattle who think all ends well in the end only to realize the end is pretty horrific, or become tomorrow's leaders who want to stop the madness, the choice is yours.

KenC
02-28-2011, 12:01 AM
@GetBetterer

You really seem to be up on the essential theory of macroeconomics. You like to use the catch phrase words like oligopoly. Did you ever stop for a minute to think that all that is economic theory?

Maybe higher education is changed today because of a need for dumbing down the average citizen, but when I took econ 101 the professor said this is the theory. Then he immediately proceeded to say that is one theory based on a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world. What are the effects of an imperfect world on supply and demand? That was the first question in a long line of questions causing us to think critically. Then other more pertinent questions like are there other theories that could apply? What about a new economic system? What would that look like?

You obviously aren't up to speed with what the Fed really does today. To me it seems you google too much and spew out a bunch of random statements that often don't even relate to or support an argument. Do you even bother to go into deep thought? Or is the first ten or so results of a google search enough to at least, hopefully, appear intelligent and up to speed? You may be able to fool your peers, but people who actually take the time to put complex puzzles together based on critical thinking will see right through you immediately.

GetBetterer
02-28-2011, 01:55 AM
KenC:
or we should just go to war to solve our economic problems.

I believe that's called sarcasm...
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg

Yeah... The other seems quite capable of regurgitating what he was taught in econ 101 at some community college but never seems to ask if that theory is really behind what is happening in the world today. Are you both trying to bring me down to your level and beat me with stupidity?

Says the big U Penn. man. Also, I went straight to ASU (not 2 years at a Community College, then to ASU) and I even had AP classes to take care of some of the credits early.

I don't know how old pushing_wins is, but I'm 21. It seems you're the one trying to bring us down to your level of stupidity and beat us with experience (you did say you were 46 and that's 25 years ahead of me).


Anyway, I can understand that for a governing body that is facing very tough times, the last thing they need is critical thinkers going beyond the propaganda to get to the real truth. You have been socially conditioned to behave as you are now. You can argue with me, against your own best interest, to appear cool on a tennis forum, but when all this mess that you believe is just fine starts to bite you in the rear, remember it was you who fell for it hook, line and sinker and you only have yourselves to blame. Won't feel so intelligent then, will you?

No, I'll be laughing at you for thinking I support Capitalism. Like I said, I'm merely defending it. Defense =/= support.


The last best estimate of GDP in 2010 is 14.861 Trillion USD. And 2010 was a better year for GDP. Public Debt was 14.025 Trillion USD. By my calculator the debt to GDP ratio is over 94%. And it is forcasted to rise to 19.6 Trillion USD by 2015 according to a US Treasury report.

I said my information was from the late 2000's, not 2010... Please tell me you read that part of my post, otherwise I really feel like I shouldn't have to have the courtesy to read through your entire post.

More importantly that a stupid economic indicator, who has to pay that escalating public debt? The government? No, you do through taxes. And your tax rate will have to go up sooner or later. Secondly, why do people place so much value on the Debt/GDP ratio? Does it measure the well-being of anything other than the economy? Is the economy the end to the means? Apparently so.

The debt explanation is again, in my post.

The reason many people measure GDP ratio is because it's the money a country's earning for itself in comparison to it's debt. Workers give us the GDP, and their taxes pay government materials and, as you said, debt. Now if this large amount of production generates wealth, and therefore more tax dollars, which as you said, pays off the debt, doesn't it seem helpful that the GDP ratio should be calculated and has significance?

Lastly, you love this word interdependent, and you use it like cooperation instead of competition. While it may seem the US economy and the Chinese economy are interdependent today, do you really think it is equitable interdependency? Ask Warren Buffet what he thinks. Remember Squanderville Vs. Thriftville? Or is he an idiot too? Interestingly, since he wrote that he started investing heavily in China. As did most of the US rich. They at least know how to make money off the decline of the US. Now, in the end of this glorious interdependency, what are you to gain? The chinese get all the jobs and the investment and you get cheaper iJunk. Whoever sold you the idea of interdependency is obviously heavily invested in China and is looking to make a killing off your gullibleness.

http://canitbesaturdaynow.com/images/fpics/3426/b4fb8e211b399cee2839832f213bd64e.jpg

You know what is. That's my face when my supposed "community college" taught me that gullibleness isn't a word Mr. U Penn man.

Also, I already explained that competition (even for our example of iJunk) is a good thing. I don't want to go back and re-quote my entire post. Please read it fully the next time, or take the time right now to go back and read it. That would save me some time.

For the time being, I hope this ongoing argument at least encourages others to think critically and not blindly accept the tons of propaganda out there. You can choose to be cattle who think all ends well in the end only to realize the end is pretty horrific, or become tomorrow's leaders who want to stop the madness, the choice is yours.

Says the man who listens to news reports, which are all biased in some way, not to mention there are other factors such as family. If anything, I think you're brainwashing your poor daughter. Should take her over to Antarctica. No laws there, not much trading, not owned by any country. Seems like paradise to me. Let's not forget you also quoted a "corrupt, propaganda-feeding, brainwashing government" website.

http://www.brendanmckillip.com/uploaded_images/IBelieveInHarveyDent-774179.jpg

You obviously aren't up to speed with what the Fed really does today. To me it seems you google too much and spew out a bunch of random statements that often don't even relate to or support an argument. Do you even bother to go into deep thought? Or is the first ten or so results of a google search enough to at least, hopefully, appear intelligent and up to speed? You may be able to fool your peers, but people who actually take the time to put complex puzzles together based on critical thinking will see right through you immediately.

This sounds more like you than me.

PCXL-Fan
02-28-2011, 02:22 AM
There really is no point in arguing with these two Ken C. They have no will to partake in an honest discussion with you.

GetBetterer is complain that you aren't giving his posts adequate courtesy because you missed 1 detail going in depth in your reply to his post, you Ken C he's been on the receiving end of that treatment for the past several days from pushing_wins.
I said my information was from the late 2000's, not 2010... Please tell me you read that part of my post, otherwise I really feel like I shouldn't have to have the courtesy to read through your entire post.
one small mistake and you get all bunched up...
Ken C has been on the receiving end of that from you guys for the past several days... look at your buddy pushing wins posts... christ...

KenC
02-28-2011, 03:09 AM
You seem to be very defensive and combative at the same time...

It appears to me that you think the Debt to GDP ratio is a worthy economic indicator and describes an investment of tax dollars into creating national wealth. Does it describe “how” that wealth is created or distributed? Does it take into account any external costs, such as environmental damage and social damage, created to produce that wealth? Does it in any way describe how economic growth can continue?

Do you really want to put all your trust in rising GDP? Do you know how GDP is calculated? Do you really think GDP will rise indefinitely, or at least for the next 50 years? How much public debt can the GDP safely absorb? Is over 14 trillion USD of debt OK for someone who is just about to start earning a living, (I might add in a very bleak looking job market) and will have to work for at least 50 years to help pay off just the interest on that skyrocketing public debt? What percentage of your labor are you willing to give to the government to continue doing all the fine things it is doing for you? 35%? 50%? 65%? Did you ever stop to think how you benefited from all that public debt? You got a very serious military capacity, but not a very good social capacity, or governing capacity for that matter. You do have abundant access to really cheap iJunk and brain eroding mass media. You got a rich 1% of the country that owns about 40% of the country's wealth. Don't think for a minute that also you could become one of those 1% because there is no chance. But yeah, OK, Public Debt to GDP will save the day.

Wasn't it Journey that sang “Don't stop... believing...”

So, I eagerly await your deep critical thoughts. Insult away!

KenC
02-28-2011, 03:14 AM
There really is no point in arguing with these two Ken C. They have no will to partake in an honest discussion with you.


I know, but hopefully others are also noticing how things are not as they appear and will consider my responses at least food for thought. So, I need these two to continue so other people can understand why common thought is only getting all of us into serious trouble. My only goal here is to help people think more critically so they can start acting more responsibly. Trust me, I would rather be playing tennis instead, but it's for a good cause. Us.

stanton warrior
02-28-2011, 09:10 AM
No, talking to me is like talking to someone who uses your own mind against you.

...
I wouldn't want your mind and views for a million, believe me.

Weren't you the one saying that the us doesn't overproduce or was that the other one? I gave you the source that half of the food (in this case, the one ready for harvest) is thrown away.
Yet all you're doing is arguing about percentages and stuff like that.

I'm writing from work, in between coding financial applications I log on here, I don't have time to read every article or every detail of your posts. If you think me missing a detail here and there invalidates my posts, fine.

As KenC said, you're just a troll eager to be right, and not even a very good one at that.
Sooner or later reality is going to proof you wrong, painfully, I might add. Believe me, this won't be one of the cases where I'm happy to be right!

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 10:08 AM
It appears you both are just here to argue and argue to win, but not by actually presenting any arguments based on your own critical thinking. One just makes up stuff like we all chose to be lazier at work instead of choose to work less hours, or we should just go to war to solve our economic problems. Yeah... The other seems quite capable of regurgitating what he was taught in econ 101 at some community college but never seems to ask if that theory is really behind what is happening in the world today. Are you both trying to bring me down to your level and beat me with stupidity?

The last best estimate of GDP in 2010 is 14.861 Trillion USD. (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm) And 2010 was a better year for GDP. Public Debt was 14.025 Trillion USD. By my calculator the debt to GDP ratio is over 94%. And it is forcasted to rise to 19.6 Trillion USD (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/08/usa-treasury-debt-idUSN088462520100608) by 2015 according to a US Treasury report.

More importantly that a stupid economic indicator, who has to pay that escalating public debt? The government? No, you do through taxes. And your tax rate will have to go up sooner or later. Secondly, why do people place so much value on the Debt/GDP ratio? Does it measure the well-being of anything other than the economy? Is the economy the end to the means? Apparently so.

Why would we want to produce beyond abundance? Do you really think we are not producing enough goods to satisfy demand? Are all factories producing around the clock? Next time you go into a supermarket ask yourself is there a shortage of food. Next time you go to the mall, look around at all the scarcity. We are producing beyond abundance and we drive it by manipulating consumers through agressive advertising to over consume. Why? We need even more consumption to drive the economy close to its tilt point so that we can finance the ever increasing public debt that is getting close to its tilt point.

Lastly, you love this word interdependent, and you use it like cooperation instead of competition. While it may seem the US economy and the Chinese economy are interdependent today, do you really think it is equitable interdependency? Ask Warren Buffet what he thinks. Remember Squanderville Vs. Thriftville? Or is he an idiot too? Interestingly, since he wrote that he started investing heavily in China. As did most of the US rich. They at least know how to make money off the decline of the US. Now, in the end of this glorious interdependency, what are you to gain? The chinese get all the jobs and the investment and you get cheaper iJunk. Whoever sold you the idea of interdependency is obviously heavily invested in China and is looking to make a killing off your gullibleness.

Anyway, I can understand that for a governing body that is facing very tough times, the last thing they need is critical thinkers going beyond the propaganda to get to the real truth. You have been socially conditioned to behave as you are now. You can argue with me, against your own best interest, to appear cool on a tennis forum, but when all this mess that you believe is just fine starts to bite you in the rear, remember it was you who fell for it hook, line and sinker and you only have yourselves to blame. Won't feel so intelligent then, will you?

For the time being, I hope this ongoing argument at least encourages others to think critically and not blindly accept the tons of propaganda out there. You can choose to be cattle who think all ends well in the end only to realize the end is pretty horrific, or become tomorrow's leaders who want to stop the madness, the choice is yours.

i dont wish to argue economic with you.

people should keep their word.

you say you retire, you retire.

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 10:13 AM
you Ken C he's been on the receiving end of that treatment for the past several days from pushing_wins.


why doesnt he walk away?

he said ealier, it was useless talk to us. and left us with a message.

then he come back, blabbing away. thats nothing more than sour grapes to me. why should i listen?

stanton warrior
02-28-2011, 10:21 AM
i dont wish to argue economic with you.

people should keep their word.

you say you retire, you retire.

You're arguing semantics, that's usually a sign of defeat.

PCXL-Fan
02-28-2011, 10:23 AM
why doesnt he walk away?

he said ealier, it was useless talk to us. and left us with a message.

then he come back, blabbing away. thats nothing more than sour grapes to me. why should i listen?

Well because there is always the hope that you would stop, give him equal courtesy and maybe actually participate in the real debate with him.

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 10:31 AM
You're arguing semantics, that's usually a sign of defeat.

please elaborate.

that was my only arguement from the start. i didnt engage in any ecomomics arguemnt with him.

all you have is your word. you say you walk away. you walk away.

stanton warrior
02-28-2011, 11:08 AM
please elaborate.

that was my only arguement from the start. i didnt engage in any ecomomics arguemnt with him.

all you have is your word. you say you walk away. you walk away.
From what I've learned he has made an impressive career, has profound knowledge about the economy, and above all has a daughter he's very proud of. He makes people think and engages in interesting discussions, never losing his temper (at least so far :) ).

All you can blame him for is the fact that he has reconsidered giving up.

What have you done?

KenC
02-28-2011, 12:10 PM
What have you done?

That is the question that everyone should start to answer. For the first 25 years of my life I certainly didn't live sustainably and had much more than my fair share of the pie. Its only when I started traveling around the world that I saw those that had to give up their fair share of the pie for me. Now I live a modest life and am an activist for sustainable development.

Maybe even more important than "What have you done?" could be "Now what are you going to do?"

Some will go on trolling, but hopefully some will start thinking more deeply about what it means to be human.

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 12:23 PM
From what I've learned he has made an impressive career, has profound knowledge about the economy, and above all has a daughter he's very proud of. He makes people think and engages in interesting discussions, never losing his temper (at least so far :) ).

All you can blame him for is the fact that he has reconsidered giving up.

What have you done?


not too much other than my FB theories

my original question again

what are the rules for decision making?

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 12:28 PM
look

we cannot agree on such basic axioms as resources are scares.

how can we discuss any further?

he will bring up some example, i will bring up some examples. it continues forever until someone gives up. he is very long-winded as well, that doesnt help.

to have an argument that leads anywhere, basic axioms must be agreed upon.

GetBetterer
02-28-2011, 03:20 PM
stanton_warrior:
I wouldn't want your mind and views for a million, believe me.

No...you're keeping your mind. I'm just using it against you. Where did I say I'm giving you mine? What is this? What the f**k am I reading? This is what your post looks like stanton, seriously:
http://cdn.cbsi.com.au/builder/i/s/google_calculator_math_error_2.png

Weren't you the one saying that the us doesn't overproduce or was that the other one? I gave you the source that half of the food (in this case, the one ready for harvest) is thrown away.
Yet all you're doing is arguing about percentages and stuff like that.

I said why would we want to overproduce? You have yet to refute that it makes the good cheaper.

GetBetterer:
I knew it was 50% (the research was done at the University of Arizona, I live in Arizona, durr).

Secondly, the article's title isn't "Half of the US food goes to waste..." it's: Basic Information about Food Waste.

Also, now that I'm re-reading some of your posts again, all I'm reading is herp derp durr. Seriously.

Did you notice the first result of Google leads to the EPA website? Did you notice that the 14.1% mentioned in the EPA website and that I stated is not actually

Isn't 50%...half? What the f**k am I reading?!?! I'm just going to refer you to the Google calculator picture again at this point.

Read the rest of that post, conveniently hyperlinked for you here (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5448842&postcount=184). Although I think this post (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/bwmyers18/gtfo.jpg) is the most important.

PCXL-Fan
GetBetterer is complain that you aren't giving his posts adequate courtesy because you missed 1 detail going in depth in your reply to his post, you Ken C he's been on the receiving end of that treatment for the past several days from pushing_wins.

Actually, it's not just one detail. Neither stanton or Ken has bothered to answer any of the questions that I asked from the first 10 pages of this thread either.

Ken C has been on the receiving end of that from you guys for the past several days... look at your buddy pushing wins posts... christ...

I don't know if you've noticed, but when KenC
google too much and spew out a bunch of random statements that often don't even relate to or support an argument
and talks more about economics than this "corrupt government" viewpoint and then cites a "corrupt government" website, a major s**tstorm begins to form. I don't even know how to respond to things like this.

KenC:
It appears to me that you think the Debt to GDP ratio is a worthy economic indicator and describes an investment of tax dollars into creating national wealth. Does it describe “how” that wealth is created or distributed? Does it take into account any external costs, such as environmental damage and social damage, created to produce that wealth? Does it in any way describe how economic growth can continue?

If you're trying to tell me that the GDP-to-debt ratio isn't an accurate measure of a country's economy, then I don't know what is. GNP? Oh wait, that's more of a mercantilism-supporting measurement. Have you proved to me how it damages the social and natural well-being?

So, I eagerly await your deep critical thoughts. Insult away!

I eagerly await your answers to my questions from my other posts. Answer away!

Do you really want to put all your trust in rising GDP? Do you know how GDP is calculated? Do you really think GDP will rise indefinitely, or at least for the next 50 years? How much public debt can the GDP safely absorb? Is over 14 trillion USD of debt OK for someone who is just about to start earning a living, (I might add in a very bleak looking job market) and will have to work for at least 50 years to help pay off just the interest on that skyrocketing public debt? What percentage of your labor are you willing to give to the government to continue doing all the fine things it is doing for you? 35%? 50%? 65%? Did you ever stop to think how you benefited from all that public debt? You got a very serious military capacity, but not a very good social capacity, or governing capacity for that matter. You do have abundant access to really cheap iJunk and brain eroding mass media. You got a rich 1% of the country that owns about 40% of the country's wealth. Don't think for a minute that also you could become one of those 1% because there is no chance. But yeah, OK, Public Debt to GDP will save the day.

http://images.memegenerator.net/Jim-carrey/ImageMacro/2466581/oh-boy-here-we-go-again.jpg

1. Rising GDP is a good thing. Is it not? o_O Let's say you again present the argument: "It benefits some people, not all people. What will you do for the poor people?" with poor being a subjective term. Well, let's see the government has social security (for the elderly when they're jobless), the unemployed and some publicly funded warehouses for these people. Note: this does not benefit the 1% of wealthy rich people, and also it doesn't cause
KenC:
government to divorce itself from the needs of society
2. GDP is calculated as the product of the country's goods, meaning anywhere on the Earth.
3. I'm not an economist. I'm a Biochemist. But tell me why, why wouldn't GDP rise over the next 50 years, and if it did -- how would you respond?
4. According to this website:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20351
It's 68%. Now, I'll let you off on the fact that your information was a few months off compared to the NCPA's article (February 2011).
5. The debt's never paid directly. It's not like some generous donor just goes "I would like to give my money to help pay off the U.S. debt." You're making it sound like every citizen has to take a part of everything they earn and give it to the government, which is true, but it's not going to be as high as you stated (35%, 50%, 65%). Also, unemployment went down since 2010 from 10.4% so it's not looking that bleak. Not to mention unemployment does have a natural percent consisting of people not willing to look for jobs, college students who graduate and have to look for a job temporarily.
6. Again, where did I say I wanted cheap iJunk.
7. That brain eroding media is biased on both sides, they're going to attempt to favor one view over another somehow. Also, seeing as you also quoted a news website with a political bias, is your brain not eroding too?
8. But yeah, OK, Public Debt to GDP will save the day.

Where did I say this? ._.

Now, please answer the questions I had in my first few posts, before returning to post again since I've answered yours (even the rhetorical ones).

I know, but hopefully others are also noticing how things are not as they appear and will consider my responses at least food for thought. So, I need these two to continue so other people can understand why common thought is only getting all of us into serious trouble. My only goal here is to help people think more critically so they can start acting more responsibly. Trust me, I would rather be playing tennis instead, but it's for a good cause. Us.

If you could answer my questions, I may actually attempt this "deep thought" of yours. Of course, not answering them and practically ignoring them is always good lard for thought.

Also, pushing_wins seems neutral in this debate as he's questioned even some of my posts.

Here's what I'm seeing stanton_warrior, KenC and acronym-Fan as:
http://caosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/mussoliniandhitler.jpg

stanton_warrior:
I'm writing from work, in between coding financial applications I log on here, I don't have time to read every article or every detail of your posts. If you think me missing a detail here and there invalidates my posts, fine.

I have a job and I'm a student. How do you think I do it (excluding the fact that I read a lot in general).

never losing his temper (at least so far ).

What the f**k are YOU reading?! Send me your prescription. I'm going to need it to laugh even harder.

pushing_wins:
we cannot agree on such basic axioms as resources are scares.

I thought we did agree on this, but if we didn't, let's take a poll.

Who here agrees that resources are scarce?

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 03:58 PM
pushing_wins:


I thought we did agree on this, but if we didn't, let's take a poll.

Who here agrees that resources are scarce?


does the popular opinion rule?

if so, i vote resources are scarce.

wow, you have put a lot of effort into this thread.

GetBetterer
02-28-2011, 04:09 PM
pushing_wins:
wow, you have put a lot of effort into this thread.
I know, it's a tough job. In medieval times, this is what I would look like (I'm on the left):
http://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/8/85/Screen_shot_2010-12-13_at_7.24.41_PM.png

pushing_wins
02-28-2011, 04:12 PM
As a disclaimer I should probably state that I am an American born citizen and learned economics at Wharton and also did a Master's Degree in Sustainable Development at UPenn. I often criticize America, but it's for good reason.


Actually there are very few things that are scarce, and those things that are scarce can find substitutes or aren't necessary, or can be continuously recycled. Gold is scarce, but it is everywhere and is mostly used as jewelry, which is certainly not necessary, it is a luxury. Diamonds? Same thing. There are industrial uses for gold and diamonds but the amount of gold and diamonds in jewelry is way more than that needed by industry.

Petroleum is becoming scarce. But there is an abundant supply of energy that we don't use. Geothermal energy, tidal energy, wind energy and solar energy are but a few.

Money is scarce. There is not enough money in the world to buy all the products that are currently for sale. That's an interesting point. There are more goods available than money to buy them. In fact, most if not all scarcity is driven by the fact that money is kept scarce by the monetary system.




the theories you have now. do they contradict the theories you were taught at wharton?


the fundamental economic problem is how to allocate scare resources amoung unlimited wants.

"how do we satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources?"

if resources are not scare, there wouldnt be a need for the field of ecomomics.

KenC
03-01-2011, 12:08 AM
Ok, more opportunity.

First, what I was taught about economics applied to the prevailing economic system we had in the 80's and still have today. What I took away from my early course work and still believe today is that there is a huge gap between the pure theory that only functions in a perfect world and the reality based on an imperfect world. More importantly, in an imperfect world no economic system will be perfect. Capitalism is not perfect, nor is communism, socialism or anarchism. There is no absolute winner or loser, just that which functions better than the the rest at the moment. And that which functions better at the moment can always be better, or it can get worse.

There is a problem. Things change. Technology advances. The economic system is dependent on many sociopolitical conditions. The economic system is dependent on environmental conditions.

Since economic targets are moving targets (sociopolitical and environmental), doesn't it seem rational that economic systems, such as capitalism should evolve to best serve the needs of society by continually adjusting to those moving targets? Or should we expect the sociopolitical and environmental conditions to remain fixed so that the economic system can function at its best? More on this later.

Scarcity. Since we live on a planet with finite resources, it makes sense that everything is scarce. Air is scarce. Water is scarce and so is land. Carbon is scarce.

If everything is scarce, then does that mean that nothing is abundant? Is gold scarce? Are diamonds scarce? You bet. But we use both to make jewelry that serves absolutely no physical need. Last I checked there was abundant air, water, land, carbon, gold and diamonds. Plus we have some serious luxuries. Want a trip into space?

Now, 200 years ago things were quite different. People had to labor pretty hard to produce the food, clothing, shelter, tools and goods necessary for a comfortable standard of living. Everything was pretty scarce, including human labor. Capitalism dealt with those scarcities nwecessary for human survival and prosperity. But think about today. Need to eat? Go to a supermarket filled to the brim with junk food. Need clothing? Go to the mall jam packed with clothing. Need to travel 100 miles? Get in your new car and go. Is there a difference between when modern capitalism was taking form and the world today?

One major difference is technology. Technology is the best “good” ever invented and produced under capitalism and is its saving grace. Technology brought us out of a period of scarcity (at least from a human perspective) and into an age of abundance that now produces luxuries that were inconceivable 200 years ago. Technology is making most human labor unnecessary. Even fields that will always depend on humans, such as medicine, have been revolutionized and made much more efficient through technology. The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human. And without ruining the environment in the process.

Now for the trillion dollar question. With all the intelligence and technology we have today, why do we continue to embrace a 200 year old ideology and sell our labor to capitalists who embrace a monetary system that creates artificial scarcity in money so that they can control a disproportionate share of money and the resources money can buy, while grossly neglecting the environment we need to survive?

Today we have a choice.

(in part two of this I will go into much more depth on scarcity, because we really need to understand what scarcity really is today)

GetBetterer
03-01-2011, 12:38 AM
KenC:
First, what I was taught about economics applied to the prevailing economic system we had in the 80's and still have today. What I took away from my early course work and still believe today is that there is a huge gap between the pure theory that only functions in a perfect world and the reality based on an imperfect world. More importantly, in an imperfect world no economic system will be perfect. Capitalism is not perfect, nor is communism, socialism or anarchism. There is no absolute winner or loser, just that which functions better than the the rest at the moment. And that which functions better at the moment can always be better, or it can get worse.

All I asked was for some outside information that didn't come from your mouth...and I get this. I'm sad.

Also, I think pushing_wins asked about what you were taught in Economics because we haven't agreed that scarcity is one of the necessary reasons for Economics.


Since economic targets are moving targets (sociopolitical and environmental), doesn't it seem rational that economic systems, such as capitalism should evolve to best serve the needs of society by continually adjusting to those moving targets? Or should we expect the sociopolitical and environmental conditions to remain fixed so that the economic system can function at its best? More on this later.

Pretty sure I said (pages ago) that the government regulates this crap so we don't f**k it up.

Scarcity. Since we live on a planet with finite resources, it makes sense that everything is scarce. Air is scarce. Water is scarce and so is land. Carbon is scarce.

Scarcity: 3. Whatever-the-heck-the-other-one-was: 0.

Now, 200 years ago things were quite different. People had to labor pretty hard to produce the food, clothing, shelter, tools and goods necessary for a comfortable standard of living. Everything was pretty scarce, including human labor. Capitalism dealt with those scarcities nwecessary for human survival and prosperity. But think about today. Need to eat? Go to a supermarket filled to the brim with junk food. Need clothing? Go to the mall jam packed with clothing. Need to travel 100 miles? Get in your new car and go. Is there a difference between when modern capitalism was taking form and the world today?

200 years ago we were hitting more recessions than we are now. There weren't many government regulations to protect the workers (fear of Socialism, Communists, liberals, etcetera).


Now for the trillion dollar question. With all the intelligence and technology we have today, why do we continue to embrace a 200 year old ideology and sell our labor to capitalists who embrace a monetary system that creates artificial scarcity in money so that they can control a disproportionate share of money and the resources money can buy, while grossly neglecting the environment we need to survive?

You know, if the capitalists didn't like the monetary system, we can always go to our Congressmen/Congresswomen. They can get rid of the Fed if you want. Although seeing as how they've kept us out of many recessions, and the Fed is currently the longest lasting national government banking system. Not to mention that the political system also affects the economy -- and has a ruling power over the Fed. So if you really don't like this ideology, go tell the world, they can tell their Congressmen and we can get a whole new President and Congress to get rid of the Fed for you, after all you said:
this stuff is really very serious and is beyond the scope of a tennis forum.

So apparently, you, me, pushing_wins, stanton_warrior, XFHSDFLEASDF-fan don't understand this serious matter because we're just tennis forum lurkers.

artificial scarcity
everything is scarce.

...Yes, everything is artificially scarce because the Law of Conservation of Mass says we cannot lose mass whatsoever in the Universe and everything likes to stay on Earth.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 01:08 AM
Ok, more opportunity.

First, what I was taught about economics applied to the prevailing economic system we had in the 80's and still have today. What I took away from my early course work and still believe today is that there is a huge gap between the pure theory that only functions in a perfect world and the reality based on an imperfect world. More importantly, in an imperfect world no economic system will be perfect. Capitalism is not perfect, nor is communism, socialism or anarchism. There is no absolute winner or loser, just that which functions better than the the rest at the moment. And that which functions better at the moment can always be better, or it can get worse.

There is a problem. Things change. Technology advances. The economic system is dependent on many sociopolitical conditions. The economic system is dependent on environmental conditions.

Since economic targets are moving targets (sociopolitical and environmental), doesn't it seem rational that economic systems, such as capitalism should evolve to best serve the needs of society by continually adjusting to those moving targets? Or should we expect the sociopolitical and environmental conditions to remain fixed so that the economic system can function at its best? More on this later.

Scarcity. Since we live on a planet with finite resources, it makes sense that everything is scarce. Air is scarce. Water is scarce and so is land. Carbon is scarce.

If everything is scarce, then does that mean that nothing is abundant? Is gold scarce? Are diamonds scarce? You bet. But we use both to make jewelry that serves absolutely no physical need. Last I checked there was abundant air, water, land, carbon, gold and diamonds. Plus we have some serious luxuries. Want a trip into space?

Now, 200 years ago things were quite different. People had to labor pretty hard to produce the food, clothing, shelter, tools and goods necessary for a comfortable standard of living. Everything was pretty scarce, including human labor. Capitalism dealt with those scarcities nwecessary for human survival and prosperity. But think about today. Need to eat? Go to a supermarket filled to the brim with junk food. Need clothing? Go to the mall jam packed with clothing. Need to travel 100 miles? Get in your new car and go. Is there a difference between when modern capitalism was taking form and the world today?

One major difference is technology. Technology is the best “good” ever invented and produced under capitalism and is its saving grace. Technology brought us out of a period of scarcity (at least from a human perspective) and into an age of abundance that now produces luxuries that were inconceivable 200 years ago. Technology is making most human labor unnecessary. Even fields that will always depend on humans, such as medicine, have been revolutionized and made much more efficient through technology. The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human. And without ruining the environment in the process.

Now for the trillion dollar question. With all the intelligence and technology we have today, why do we continue to embrace a 200 year old ideology and sell our labor to capitalists who embrace a monetary system that creates artificial scarcity in money so that they can control a disproportionate share of money and the resources money can buy, while grossly neglecting the environment we need to survive?

Today we have a choice.

(in part two of this I will go into much more depth on scarcity, because we really need to understand what scarcity really is today)


our disagreement stems from a disagreemnt in the definition of the central econmics problem.

convincing people that resources are not limited will be a very difficult task.

bbc is running a story now about how china is running out of water in 30 years.

KenC
03-01-2011, 01:19 AM
Scarcity. In economic layman's terms, anything that is scarce can be bought because there is a demand for it. If something is so abundant, no one will be willing to pay money for it. Air is a pretty good example. Gold, on the other hand, is much more environmentally scarce than air, and thus can be bought. This is part of the foundation of our modern economic system. For most of human history, environmental goods, such as food and building materials, were rather abundant, but the human labor necessary to grow them, mine them, process them, build them, etc., was in short supply. In reality, 200 years ago the earth had the same abundant resources it has today but there was not enough labor to convert them into goods for human consumption. Scarce human labor is another part of the foundation of today's modern economic system. The last part is the capitalist who buys scarce human labor to produce goods that can be sold for a profit in markets for scarce goods.

Now, before we go on, we must start to dig deeper than the economic definition of scarcity which states that essentially everything is scarce. This is true from the perspective of economic theory. Are we economic theory or are we human beings? Wouldn't it be better to define scarcity from the perspective of human beings instead of economic theory? From a humanistic perspective, something is scarce if a human can't obtain it and faces death because of that scarcity. So, can we be intelligent human beings and view scarcity from a humanistic perspective, which is much more applicable in reality?

Now let's think back to the modern economic system as formed long ago in the past. Today, there is no scarcity of human labor. A sizable proportion of the humans on the planet is unemployed or underemployed. On the other hand, with the advanced technology we have today there seems to be no shortage of anything that would keep any human on this planet from not eating and having adequate shelter. Or even having a rather high quality of life for that matter. But, we don't all have that, do we? Why? Obviously there is something that is scarce.

Well, money itself is scarce. The scarcity of money is what now drives the economic system. People are dying because they don't have the money to buy land and grow food, or even go into a fully stocked supermarket and buy food. The food exists, in relative abundance, but the money to buy that food obviously doesn't. The possibility for high quality shelter for everyone on the planet exists, but there is not enough money for everyone to afford it. Even if there is a large pool of unemployed construction workers who would gladly build that shelter for everyone on the planet, there is not enough money to pay those unemployed construction workers to do the work. Maybe the capitalist system coupled with the current monetary system worked so well that it eventually eliminated the scarcity in goods needed for everyone to lead a quality life? More importantly for humans, maybe it was also very good at solving the problem of scarce human labor? Its hard to argue with the fact that there are many people out there willing to work in order to buy things that are readily available right in front of them. They just need employment that pays money.

The means to produce a high quality of life for everyone on the planet exists but there is just not enough money to implement those means.

Why do we still use an old economic system based on capitalism and a monetary system that is predicated on selling our scarce human labor for money when human labor is now overabundant? Why do we use an old economic system that now produces too much luxury goods while other humans starve? Is the current system working for humanity? Or is humanity now working for the economic system? With all our intelligence and technology we can't think of a more humane economic system that provides a quality life for all of us instead of an ever shrinking proportion?

PCXL-Fan
03-01-2011, 01:24 AM
.
If you could answer my questions, I may actually attempt this "deep thought" of yours. Of course, not answering them and practically ignoring them is always good lard for thought.

Also, pushing_wins seems neutral in this debate as he's questioned even some of my posts.

Here's what I'm seeing stanton_warrior, KenC and acronym-Fan as:
http://caosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/mussoliniandhitler.jpg


Lol are you compare us to militaristic antidemocratic fascist dictators since we are questioning the American economic system? Put your head on right.

While bringing in vast sums of wealth, many large corporations infringe on democratic rights of people regularly. As to Hitler he's anti democratic, but was not anti-capitalist. Infact the industrialists piggybacked on him and financed his campaign to power, in order to expand their power themselves. A whole session of the Nuremberg trial was dedicated towards the high positioned industrialists from Krupp & IG Farben among others and their tightly woven connection to the **** party and the use of slave labour and roll in numerous warcrimes.

Its late and i work tomorrow, so I don't have time to post much else.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 01:28 AM
Ok, more opportunity.

First, what I was taught about economics applied to the prevailing economic system we had in the 80's and still have today. What I took away from my early course work and still believe today is that there is a huge gap between the pure theory that only functions in a perfect world and the reality based on an imperfect world. More importantly, in an imperfect world no economic system will be perfect. Capitalism is not perfect, nor is communism, socialism or anarchism. There is no absolute winner or loser, just that which functions better than the the rest at the moment. And that which functions better at the moment can always be better, or it can get worse.

There is a problem. Things change. Technology advances. The economic system is dependent on many sociopolitical conditions. The economic system is dependent on environmental conditions.

Since economic targets are moving targets (sociopolitical and environmental), doesn't it seem rational that economic systems, such as capitalism should evolve to best serve the needs of society by continually adjusting to those moving targets? Or should we expect the sociopolitical and environmental conditions to remain fixed so that the economic system can function at its best? More on this later.

Scarcity. Since we live on a planet with finite resources, it makes sense that everything is scarce. Air is scarce. Water is scarce and so is land. Carbon is scarce.

If everything is scarce, then does that mean that nothing is abundant? Is gold scarce? Are diamonds scarce? You bet. But we use both to make jewelry that serves absolutely no physical need. Last I checked there was abundant air, water, land, carbon, gold and diamonds. Plus we have some serious luxuries. Want a trip into space?

Now, 200 years ago things were quite different. People had to labor pretty hard to produce the food, clothing, shelter, tools and goods necessary for a comfortable standard of living. Everything was pretty scarce, including human labor. Capitalism dealt with those scarcities nwecessary for human survival and prosperity. But think about today. Need to eat? Go to a supermarket filled to the brim with junk food. Need clothing? Go to the mall jam packed with clothing. Need to travel 100 miles? Get in your new car and go. Is there a difference between when modern capitalism was taking form and the world today?

One major difference is technology. Technology is the best “good” ever invented and produced under capitalism and is its saving grace. Technology brought us out of a period of scarcity (at least from a human perspective) and into an age of abundance that now produces luxuries that were inconceivable 200 years ago. Technology is making most human labor unnecessary. Even fields that will always depend on humans, such as medicine, have been revolutionized and made much more efficient through technology. The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human. And without ruining the environment in the process.

Now for the trillion dollar question. With all the intelligence and technology we have today, why do we continue to embrace a 200 year old ideology and sell our labor to capitalists who embrace a monetary system that creates artificial scarcity in money so that they can control a disproportionate share of money and the resources money can buy, while grossly neglecting the environment we need to survive?

Today we have a choice.

(in part two of this I will go into much more depth on scarcity, because we really need to understand what scarcity really is today)

please dont start part 2

you have a tendency to go off-topic.

we are not finished with part 1.

too late

KenC
03-01-2011, 01:53 AM
For those who don't consider what I am trying to say a personal threat, I hope it at least stimulates you enough to think about your own situation and future. We saw in the last US election that a great many people in ultramodern societies are seeking change. In fact a great many rather wealthy people are watching their lives become more difficult and the future not so secure anymore.

However, change will not happen just by voting. I think we all realize that now. The future is no longer about democrats and republicans and the neverending debate between them, or even between capitalism and socialism, it is about us simply moving forward. Simply us. Progress that makes us all have quality lives.

Imagine a world where our environment is revered and managed for the best benefit of all. Imagine a world where poverty and social injustice no longer push people to commit acts of crime and violence. Imagine a world where we no longer have to fight against each other to survive. Imagine a world without war for profits and global dominance. Imagine a world where you have time to spend raising your children and enjoying the process of being a parent. Imagine a world where you no longer compete with your neighbor but enjoy spending time with them in recreation. Imagine a world where our unique cultures are no longer attacked, but appreciated for the beauty of diversity and cultural richness. Imagine a world where your voice and vote count. Imagine a future where you can enjoy and be proud of being part of humanity.

Then realize that the future is nothing more than the decisions we collectively make and the actions we collectively take. We decide and build our future. Not them. You do. I do. We do.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:00 AM
The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human.

how much money is required to live the way you described?

stanton warrior
03-01-2011, 02:03 AM
I have a job and I'm a student. How do you think I do it (excluding the fact that I read a lot in general).



What the f**k are YOU reading?! Send me your prescription. I'm going to need it to laugh even harder.

Well trolling is not one of my hobbies, I'm not willing to spend the majority of my freetime on here, especially not arguing with someone like you.

Prescription? I thinkg you need one, chill out.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:06 AM
For those who don't consider what I am trying to say a personal threat, I hope it at least stimulates you enough to think about your own situation and future. We saw in the last US election that a great many people in ultramodern societies are seeking change. In fact a great many rather wealthy people are watching their lives become more difficult and the future not so secure anymore.

However, change will not happen just by voting. I think we all realize that now. The future is no longer about democrats and republicans and the neverending debate between them, or even between capitalism and socialism, it is about us simply moving forward. Simply us. Progress that makes us all have quality lives.

Imagine a world where our environment is revered and managed for the best benefit of all. Imagine a world where poverty and social injustice no longer push people to commit acts of crime and violence. Imagine a world where we no longer have to fight against each other to survive. Imagine a world without war for profits and global dominance. Imagine a world where you have time to spend raising your children and enjoying the process of being a parent. Imagine a world where you no longer compete with your neighbor but enjoy spending time with them in recreation. Imagine a world where our unique cultures are no longer attacked, but appreciated for the beauty of diversity and cultural richness. Imagine a world where your voice and vote count. Imagine a future where you can enjoy and be proud of being part of humanity.

Then realize that the future is nothing more than the decisions we collectively make and the actions we collectively take. We decide and build our future. Not them. You do. I do. We do.

sappy. long-winded and off topic.

you are talking nonsense again.

stanton warrior
03-01-2011, 02:07 AM
sappy. long-winded and off topic.

you are talking nonsense again.

Freaking hilarious, a sheep defending his butcher. You won't get it until reality stabs you.

KenC
03-01-2011, 02:23 AM
How much money is required for all of humanity to live a quality life? In my opinion, there isn't enough money in the world to do it. There never will be enough money in the world to do it. Money is too scarce.

But the real question is, do we need “money” in order for all of us to enjoy a quality life? Maybe what we really need in order for all of us to have a quality life can't be bought? Maybe what we really need instead of money is human solidarity? Maybe if we had human solidarity we would have no need for money?

I know this is a quantum leap, but maybe today, for the first time in human evolution, our problems are no longer economic in nature, but social?

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:31 AM
The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human. And without ruining the environment in the process.



i suggest we use maslow hiearchy as our guideline for human needs. can we agree on that?

even saving the environemnt is based on economics. look at the carbon credit system that was created.

KenC
03-01-2011, 02:33 AM
@Stanton

Don't sweat it. I am focused on the big picture here and hopefully for every pushing_wins or getbetterer there are many more people who are being stimulated to think more critically. Secondly, they lose a lot of credibility when all they can do is attack the poster, in anger, and not offer any better ideas to the ideas presented.

Hopefully people will see the results of a lot of political and economic propaganda in them. What you and I and every other concerned human on the planet really need to do is move ahead even if a few choose to remain behind.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:34 AM
Freaking hilarious, a sheep defending his butcher. You won't get it until reality stabs you.

nothing

10char

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:42 AM
hopefully for every pushing_wins or getbetterer there are many more people who are being stimulated to think more critically.

who is thinking more critically?


how do we come to conclusions about that question?

please give me a reasonable decision rule.

just becausse you are a contrarian, you perceive yourself as thinking more critically than other.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 02:44 AM
How much money is required for all of humanity to live a quality life? In my opinion, there isn't enough money in the world to do it. There never will be enough money in the world to do it. Money is too scarce.

But the real question is, do we need “money” in order for all of us to enjoy a quality life? Maybe what we really need in order for all of us to have a quality life can't be bought? Maybe what we really need instead of money is human solidarity? Maybe if we had human solidarity we would have no need for money?

I know this is a quantum leap, but maybe today, for the first time in human evolution, our problems are no longer economic in nature, but social?

money as a medium of exchange. can we talk on those terms?

KenC
03-01-2011, 02:56 AM
Moving along. Why am I bothering to encourage all this heavy thought into a forum where we really should be discussing tennis? First, a very thought provoking post was originally made that generated interest.

Second, the best chances for any change to occur come from organizing those who stand to benefit the most from the change. In the case of a better future, this stands to benefit the younger generations much more than the older generations. Here in this tennis forum we find a concentration of the younger generations.

When discussing sustainability, the younger generation faces a considerable foe, being the entrenched older generations who hold a disproportionate amount of the political power and economic wealth. Convincing them to change will be very difficult. They worked their whole lives to get to this point and are now focused on the finish line. And, because of the baby boomers, they will be a very large percentage of the population.

Unfortunately, the younger generation is MIA today. They have no voice or say in anything, and don't seem to care much one way or another. Those few who do exercise their voice seem to side with the older, entrenched generation. I find this interesting and sad. But, it is their future more than it is mine at this point.

pushing_wins
03-01-2011, 03:02 AM
1) your main contention


The technology we have TODAY is more than enough to produce the food, shelter and essential goods to give every human on planet earth a rather high quality lifestyle where they no longer have to fear hunger, and instead can all begin to enjoy the true benefits of being human.



2) it is posited from your contention that poverty only exists because of income disparaty.

3)your suggested solution: we would elimate poverty if we all learned to share.

4) and as a corrollary: money is a mechanism that adds to the income disparaty.

please confirm. please dont go off on a tangent. please help us understand you.

to discuss further, we have to fully understand you position.